Lack of a transit permit for timber transport constitutes a breach of the Indian Forest Act, regardless of timber ownership.

1. This is an appeal by the State of Tripura against the acquittal of all the four respondents of offences punishable under S.42 of the Indian Forest Act and of respondent No. 1 Sashimohan Malakar, under S.353 and S.323 of the I. P. C.

2. The case of the prosecution is briefly as follows: -
The 4 respondents were each of them found carrying certain logs of wood without a valid transit permit; it was also stated that the logs had no required mark and that royalty had not been paid on them. According to P.W. 1 (Shri Asit Kumar Chakraborty, Beat Officer of Ananda Bazar Beat Office) when the accused persons, along with yet another, were sought to be apprehended they threw the wooden posts, caught hold of himself and others an averment which stands contradicted by the evidence of P.W. 4 (Hari Mohan Sarkar, Forester of Aicharang Bari Forest Beat Office) who merely said that on seeing the officers named above the said 4 persons left the logs and ran away. There is thus no reliable evidence that all of them came to catch hold of the prosecution witnesses. It is further stated by P.W. 1, which is supported by P.W. 4 to this extent, that when P.W. 2 (Sukhendu Ch. Chakraborty) caught hold of the first respondent the first respondent struck P.W. 2 with the wooden post possessed by him resulting in some minor injuries to P.W. 2. P.W. 2 has been supported, regarding his sustaining injuries, by P.W. 3 (Dr. Jajneswar Das) who treated him.

3. The learned Magistrate appears to have taken the view that in the absence of evidence from where the trees were taken or said to have been felled no offence under the Forest Act could be said to have been committed. He relied upon a decision in Sidheswar Panda v. The State , reported in AIR 1954 Ori 16 : (1953 CriLJ 1895). But our attention has been drawn by the learned Advocate General to a later Division Bench decision, Kasi Prasad v. State of Orissa , reported in AIR 1963 Ori 24 where Narasimham, C. J. has discussed the question at length citing the relevant provisions of Forest Act and the rules framed in Orissa thereunder. Rules were framed in Assam also. After distinguishing the earlier decision it was pointed out by the learned Chief Justice, on an interpretation of the expression "forest produce", as used in the Indian Forest Act , there was an implied power in the Government to regulate the transit of timber even if it may not be the property of Government. We are in respectful agreement with the learned Chief Justice. The concerned provisions of the Forest Act may now be read: -
2. (4) "forest produce" includes
(a) the following whether found in, or brought from, a forest or not, that is to say timber, charcoal caout houc, catechu, wood - oil, resin, natural varnidh, bark, lac, mahua flowers, mahua seeds, kuth, and myrabolams, and
(b) the following when found in, or brought from, a forest, that is to say -
(i) trees and leaves, flowers and fruits, and all other parts or produce not hereinbefore mentioned, of trees,
(ii) plants not being trees (including grass creepers, reeds and moss), and all parts of produce of such plants,
(iii) wild animals any skin, tusks, horns, bones, silk, cocoons, honey and wax and all other parts or produce of animals, and
(iv) peat, surface soil, rock and minerals (including lime - stone, laterite, mineral oils and all products of mines or quarries);
41. (1) The control of all rivers and their banks as regards the floating of timber, as well as the control of all timber and other forest produce in transit by land or water, is vested in the State Gover