IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT INDORE

BEFORE

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH

CRIMINAL REVISION No. 82 of 2014

SHAILENDRA

Versus

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Appearance:

Shri Prasun Pandey - Advocate for the revision petitioner.

Shri Jai Gopal Chouksey - GA for the State.

(Heard on: 05.01.2026)

(Delivered on: 09.01.2026)

ORDER

This criminal revision under section 397 of the Cr.P.C.,1973 is

preferred being aggrieved by judgment dated 03.07.2014 in criminal appeal No.777/2013 by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Mhow, District Indore arising out of judgment dated 30.09.2013 in criminal case no.1545/2007 by JMFC, Mhow, District Indore whereby revision petitioner/accused has been convicted under section 16 read with section 5 of the M.P. Van Upaj

(Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1969 (hereinafter referred as the "Act of 1969") and under section 26(1)(च) of Indian Forest Act, 1927 (hereinafter referred as the "Act of 1927") and has been sentenced to undergo 6 months RI with fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation of 1 month RI and 3 months with fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulations of 15 days RI. The

substantive sentence has been ordered to run concurrently.

2. The revision petitioner was prosecuted on the basis of POR No.1748/2014 dated 18.10.2006 for committing forest offence with regard to transport of specific forest produce namely Teak wood in contravention of section 5 of the Act of 1969 in Sub-range Yashvant Nagar, Range Manpur Division, Indore on 18.10.2006 through Eicher truck bearing registration No.MP-09-KB-4400.

3. The revision petitioner abjured the guilt and to bring home the guilt prosecution has examined forest guards i.e. Lokesh Shrotriye (PW-1), guard Rahul Dohare (PW-2) and Asharam Dabal (PW-3).

4. In examination under section 313 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 revision petitioner/accused denied all the facts and circumstances against him and expressed ignorance. His defense is of false implication due to denial of transporting the goods of forest officers through his vehicle. Appreciating the evidence trial court convicted and sentence the revision petitioner as mentioned in para-1 of the judgment and the appeal was also dismissed. 5. Challenging the conviction and sentence this revision petition has been preferred on the ground that both the courts below failed to appreciate the prosecution case particularly with respect to the relevant circular of which the violation is alleged against the present revision petitioner. There is no evidence of cutting of trees and damage caused to the trees of the forest. Both the courts below committed error in convicting the revision petitioner/ accused under section 26(1)(च) of the Act of 1927. Both the courts below committed error in not considering the defense of the revision petitioner/accused. Their story is stereotype and is contradictory. On one hand they have stated that they intercepted the vehicle on the basis of secret information but on the other hand they have stated that they suddenly found the truck in beat no.28 of the reserve forest. Both the courts below committed error in inflicting the sentence by ignoring the age of the revision petitioner/accused.

6. Heard.

7. Perused the record.

8. As per section 2 (l) of the M.P. Van Upaj (Vyapar Viniyaman)

Adhiniyam, 1969 "Specified Forest Produce" in relation to a specified area means the forest produce specified in notification under sub-section 3 of the section 1 for such specified area.

9. Notification dated 24.09.1976 published in म(cid:3)य (cid:5)देश राजप(cid:13)

(असाधारण) dated 24.09.1976 is being reproduced as below:-

"Bhopal, the 24^th September 1976.

No. F. 30-37-76-III-X. In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (ii) of sub-section (3) of section 1 of the Madhya Pradesh Van Upaj (Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1969 (No. 9 of 1969), the State Government hereby specifies that the said Adhiniyam shall come into force on the the 2nd October, 1976 in the areas specified in column (1) of the Schedule below in relation to the fore