Point of law: Re-appreciation of evidence - Revisional jurisdiction of High Court - In any case it is well settled that the scope of revisional jurisdiction of High Court does not extend to re-appreciation of evidence.

JUDGMENT :

[1] Trial Court held the petitioners guilty of offence under Section 42 of the Indian Forest Act for violation of Tripura Forest Transit Rules, 1952 and after conviction, sentenced each of them to Simple Imprisonment (SI) for 6 (six) months. In appeal, the Sessions court upheld the said conviction and sentence of the appellants and dismissed their appeal. Aggrieved appellants, have, therefore, challenged the impugned judgment and order dated 15.02.2019 passed by the learned Sessions Judge of Dhalai Judicial District in Criminal Appeal No.01 of 2018 where by the learned Sessions Judge upheld their conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court and dismissed their appeal.

[2] Essential facts necessary for disposal of the case are as under:

On the tip of information received from secret source, the Officer in charge of Forest Protection Unit, spotted a Maruti Omni Van on its way from Ambassa to Gandacherra on 13.12.2017 at around 4 O’clock in the morning. It was noticed that the said vehicle had no number plate. Sri Suman Das, Officer-in-Charge of Ambassa Forest Protection Unit along with his accompanying staff detained the vehicle and carried out search in the vehicle. The vehicle was found carrying 4 sawn teak timbers inside it. Petitioner Abdul Kader was the driver of the said vehicle who was accompanied by co-accused Brajendra Debbarma(petitioner). None of them could produce any permit or valid transit pass for movement of those sawn timbers. As a result, both of them were booked under Section 42 of the Indian Forest Act and the timbers recovered from their possession were seized by the Forest officials. Consequently, they were prosecuted for the said offence and after a full trial in case No.CR (Forest) 02 of 2017 in the court of the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate at Kamalpur, both of them were found guilty. Accordingly, they were convicted and sentenced by the trial court by judgment and order dated 17.07.2018. Relevant extract of the said judgment and order of the trial Judge is as under:

“ORDER

22. In the result, Prosecution has successfully proved the accusation leveled against the accused persons namely Abdul Kader and Brajendra Debbarma under Sec. 42 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 read with Rule 13 of the Tripura Forest Transit Rules beyond all shadows of reasonable doubt and as a result I find them guilty for commission of the offence punishable under Sec. 42 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 read with Rule 13 of the Tripura Forest Transit Rules. Consequently, accused Abdul Kader and Brajendra Debbarma are hereby convicted under Sec. 42 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 read with Rule 13 of the Tripura Forest Transit Rules.

23. Now as the convicts Abdul Kader and Brajendra Debbarma have been found guilty so the Court has to consider whether benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 may be extended to them. The purpose behind the enactment of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 is to give a chance to a person found guilty of committing an offence for correction so that his incarceration in jail as a result of sentence does not make him a seasoned criminal. This is based on reformative theory of modernday Penology. However, lenient view under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 can be taken against those convicts who have been compelled to commit offence due to some exceptional situation or who are first time offenders and are below 21 years of age. This Court, relies on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad vs. Union of India (1997) 2 SCC 267 where it is held that the Forest Conservation Act was enacted with a view to check further deforestation which ultimately results in economic imbalance and therefore the provisions made therein are for the conservation of forests and for matters connected therewith. Thus, taking the spirit of this judgment I am of the view that Courts below are duty bound to share the consciousness of protection of forest and enviro