SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1960 Supreme(All) 325

A. N. MULLA
Matroo Khan – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
S.N. Misra, B.B. Pandey and S.B. Mathur, Advocates, for the Applicants; R.B. Bisaria, Advocate, for the State

JUDGMENT

A. N. Mulla, J. :- Matru Khan applicant has been convicted under Section 26 read with Section 5 of the Indian Forest Act and has been sentenced to a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default 1 months' rigorous imprisonment. The appellate court also awarded a compensation to the Forest Department and directed the applicant to pay a sum of Rs. 2500/-.

2. The counsel for the applicant has raised two contentions before me, In the first place he contended that since no notification under Section 20 of the Indian Forest Act was passed in this case the tract of land from which the trees were cut away had not been declared to be a. reserved forest. In support of this contention he also drew my attention to the fact that the acts which are made penal in respect of the reserved forests are different from the acts which are made penal in respect of those forests about which only a notification under Section 4 of the Indian Forest Act has been issued.

It seems that the State before it can declare any area as a reserved forest had to make two notifications. The first notification is to be issued under section 4, which may be described as a proposal for declaring a particular area as a reserved fore

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top