Chait Ram Goswami vs State of Uttarakhand

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(UK) 353

RAVINDRA MAITHANI
Chait Ram Goswami – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand – Respondent

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Sandeep Tandon, Poonam Rana.
For the Respondent: Pramod Tiwari.

JUDGMENT :

RAVINDRA MAITHANI, J.

1. The challenge in this revision is made to the judgment and order dated 20.09.2011, passed in Criminal Revision No. 3 of 2011, State of Uttarakhand Vs. C.R. Goswami, by the court of District and Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhwal (“the second revision”). By it, an order dated 30.11.2010 of the Trial Court was set aside and the matter was remanded for hearing afresh, in accordance with law.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. Facts necessary to appreciate the controversy, briefly stated, are as follows:

On 29.12.2005, the forest officials found a dead elephant. It was noticed that its trunk had touched the live electric wire that is how the death took place. The Divisional Forest Officer filed a complaint under Section 55 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (“the Act”) against the revisionist, which is basis of Criminal Case No. 310 of 2009, in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal (“the case”).

In the case, on 01.05.2008, the court passed an order that there are sufficient grounds to frame charge under Section 51 of the Act against the revisionist. That order dated 01.05.2008 wa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document