Conviction under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act reversed due to insufficient independent evidence and substantive defense claims.

1. The present Criminal Revision No. 638 of 2003 has been filed on behalf of the petitioners challenging the judgment dated 24.03.2003 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 63 of 1992 by Sri Ramanuj Narain, VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj whereby VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj has partly allowed the Criminal Appeal No. 63 of 1992 with modification in the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.06.1992 passed by Sri Shayam Bihari Rai, then Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Palamau at Daltonganj by which the petitioners and 26 others have been acquitted for the offences under S.352 and S.353 of the Indian Penal Code and under S.2 of the Forest Conservation Act . However, the conviction of the petitioners and two others has been upheld for the offence under S.33 of the Indian Forest Act . Although vide the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.06.1992 passed by Sri Shayam Bihari Rai, then Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Palamau at Daltonganj in connection with C. F. Case No. 433 of 1990 corresponding to T. R. No. 80 of 1992 had convicted the petitioners and 26 others for the offences under S.352 and S.353 of the Indian Penal Code and also S.33 of the Indian Forest Act and S.2 of the and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for a period of two (2) months for the offence under S.352 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for a period of six (6) months for the offence under S.353 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for a period of six (6) months for the offence under S.33 of the Indian Forest Act and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for a period of two (2) months for the offence under S.2 of the .
However, all the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that he is not pressing the Criminal Revision on merit, rather he is pressing on the point of sentence only. It is submitted that the petitioner No. 1, Rajdeo Mochi and the petitioner No. 2, Pyari Mochi are in custody since 06.09.2024 and 25.08.2024 respectively i.e. for more than four months and as such lenient view may be taken for them.
It is further submitted that the petitioner nos. 3 to 6 have faced long protracted trial for more than 30 years and hence, lenient view may be taken for them in view of the above fact also.

3. On the other hand, learned Spl. P. P. raised no objection and has fairly submitted that the petitioner No. 1, Rajdeo Mochi and the petitioner No. 2, Pyari Mochi are in custody for around four months and hence, the Court may pass appropriate order.
However, learned Spl. P. P. has opposed the submission with respect to the petitioner Nos. 3 to 6 and has submitted that they had encroached over the Forest Area in question and the judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court requires no interference.

4. Perused the records of this case and considered the submission of both the sides.

5. It appears that this Criminal Revision No. 638 of 2003 was admitted on 08.08.2003 and Lower Court Records were called for and the petitioners (Rajdeo Mochi, Pyari Mochi, Dashrath Bhuiyan, Jeetu Bhuiyan, Gull Bhuiyan and Neknam Bhuiyan) were granted bail.

6. It appears that Criminal Revision No. 638 of 2003 was dismissed for default by the Co - ordinate Bench (Justice Anant Bijay Singh as then His Lordship was) of this Court on 03.12.2018.

7. It also reveals from the office note that entire Original Lower Court Records were sent to the Court of the concerned Judicial Magistrate, Civil Courts, Palamau at