Unauthorised movement of forest produce is a clear breach of the Tripura Forest Transit Rules, 1952, punishable under Section 42 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927.

JUDGMENT :

S.G. Chattopadhyay, J.

1. This criminal revision petition has been filed challenging the judgment dated 07.09.2018 delivered by the Sessions Judge, Gomati Judicial District, Udaipur in Criminal Appeal No. 09(1) of 2018. By the impugned judgment the leaned Sessions Judge affirmed the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 18.01.2018 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gomati Judicial District, Udaipur in Case No. CR(F) 01/2016 convicting the petitioner under Section 42 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and sentencing him to R.I for three months and fine of Rs. 500 with default stipulation.

2. The factual background of the case is as under:

Prabitra Kr. Jamatia (PW-1), Officer-in-Charge of Forest Protection Unit, Garjee lodged a prosecution report in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Udaipur on 1st February, 2016 alleging that at about 11.30 am on the day, he along with his accompanying forest staff detained a vehicle carrying registration No. TR-03B-1879 on its way from a place called Pitra to Udiaipur. Soon after they stopped the vehicle the driver of the vehicle along with three other persons ran away. But the petitioner could not escape. A search operation was carried out in the vehicle and 23 unmarked sized logs of teak tree were found loaded in the vehicle which were seized and the petitioner was detained. On interrogation, the petitioner confessed to the forest patrolling team that he was engaged in smuggling forest produce from Udaipur to Bangladesh over a long period of time. The prosecution report was then submitted in Court and the accused was also produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate.

3. Having taken cognizance of offence, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate explained the particulars of the alleged offence to the petitioner who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Accordingly, case of the accused was tried in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate and oral evidence of five prosecution witnesses including the complainant was recorded at the trial. The other witnesses were forest guards Sri Rasamoy Debnath (PW-2), Sri Kinkar Chakma (PW-3), Sri Dinesh Debbarma (PW-4) and Sri Sukhendu Ch. Dey (PW-5). Besides their oral statements, prosecution also adduced four documents which were marked as Exhibit-1 to Exhibit-4 at the trial and the logs which were seized from the possession of the petitioner was marked as Exbt. MO-1. The petitioner was also given opportunity to explain the circumstances appearing in evidence against him. During his examination under Section 313 Cr. P.C. the learned trial Judge explained the incriminating evidence in detail to him. The petitioner simply denied the case and claimed that he was implicated in a false case.

4. On appreciation of evidence the learned trial Judge found him guilty and convicted him under Section 42 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. Having recorded reasons as to why the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act was not extendable to the petitioner, the trial Court sentenced the petitioner to RI for three months and fine of Rs. 500/- with default stipulation. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge by the impugned judgment affirmed the conviction and sentence by observing as under:

"11. Apart from the confessional statement of the appellant, the evidence of the Pws otherwise also is sufficient by itself to fetch the conclusion that the appellant was found in possession of the illegal teak logs in the offending vehicle and he failed to justify his possession. Hence, as a whole, there is absolutely no doubt about the commission of offence punishable under Section 42 of the I.F. Act by the convict appellant.

12. In view of the above discussion and observation, I am of the view that the learned trial court has rightly concluded that the prosecution has proved its case by adducing cogent evidence.

As regards the sentence vis-a-vis probation:

13. As regards the sentence, it needs to be noted that the accused is guilty of forest offence which has a