In the Supreme Court of Bangladesh High Court Division

(Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction)

Present:

Mr. Justice Md. Khairul Alam

Criminal Revision No. 1076 of 2005

In the matter of:

Md. Nurul Islam

.......... -Petitioner. -Versus-

The State

.......... -Opposite party. None appears

..... For the petitioner. Mr. S.M. Emamul Musfiqur, A.A.G

…………… For the state

Heard On: 11.11.2024 & Judgment on: 20.11.2024

Md. Khairul Alam, J:

This rule was issued calling upon the Deputy Commissioner, Gazipur to show cause as to why the judgment and order dated 28.02.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Gazipur in Criminal Appeal No. 24 of 1991 dismissing the appeal and thereby affirming the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 30.05.1991 passed by the learned Magistrate, 1st Class, Kapashia, Gazipur in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 03 of 1991 arising out of T.R. No. 25 of 1991 convicting to the petitioner under section 26(1A) of the

Forest Act, 1927 and thereby sentencing him to suffer simple imprisonment for 06 (six) months and also to pay a fine of Taka 5,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 1 (one) month and 15 days more should not be set aside and or pass such other or further order or orders as to this Court deem fit and proper.

The prosecution story, in short, is that on 05.10.1990 at about 6.00 a.m., Abdul Kader Bhuyan, Forest Officer, Gosinga Bit, Gazipur along with other employees of the forest division went to the village Tarun under the mauza Tarun and found that the accused Rafiqul Islam, Chand Mia, Shofiqul Islam, Nurul Islam and Monir Hossain had been chopping wood on plot No. 33. The informant party tried to detain the said accused, but they managed to escape. The informant party seized 2 maunds of Gozari tree and also received 3 maunds of firewood from the place of occurrence. On investigation, the informant party found that on the previous night, those trees had been cut from plots Nos. 1 and 4 of Tarun Mauza and plot No. 4 of Pakiar Mauza, hence the case.

The learned Magistrate framed charge against the petitioner and 3 others under section 26(1A) of the Forest Act, 1927 and discharged co-accused Siful Islam as he was then minor.

During the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 3 witnesses to prove the charge, and the defence cross-examined the prosecution witnesses. After the prosecution witness, the accused were examined under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to which they again pleaded not guilty but did not adduce any defense witness.

After the consolation of the trial learned Magistrate by the judgment and order of conviction of sentence dated 30.05.1999 found the petitioner and others guilty under section 26(1A) of the Forest Act, 1927, and sentenced them as aforesaid.

Against the said judgment and order of conviction and sentence the present petitioner and others preferred Criminal Appeal No. 24 of 1991 before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Gazipur which was heard by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court Gazipur. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Gazipur after hearing the said appeal by the judgment and order dated 28.02.2005 dismissed the appeal and thereby affirmed the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court.

Being aggrieved thereby the convict petitioner preferred this criminal revision and obtained the Rule.

No one appears in support of the Rule.

Mr. S.M. Emamul Musfiqur, the learned Assistant Attorney General appearing for the state supports the impugned judgment and order and submits that the petitioner and others had removed timber from the reserved forest, hence the courts below rightly found the petitioner guilty under section 26(1A) of the Forest Act, 1927 and thereby rightly awarded the sentence.

The point to be adjudicated in this Rule is whether the ju