Bibhuti Nanda Vs State

in Criminal Appeal No.70 of 2007, whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.08.2007 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Gunupur in 2 (b) C.C. No.01 of 2006 has been confirmed.

¶16

2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 05.02.2006 at about 3.10 A.M., while night patrolling was going on, the Forester and his staff found one tractor along with a trolley loaded with paddy bags near Bhurukudu village road. On suspicion, they checked the said tractor and recovered 48 numbers of peasal planks (Bija). On demand, the accused persons could not produce any valid authority in support of the possession of said forest products. Hence, the Forester seized the same and prepared the seizure list on the spot in presence of the witnesses and a copy of the seizure list was given to the accused persons and their signatures were obtained at the reverse side of the seizure list. After completion of investigation, 2(b) C.C. Case No.01 of 2006 was filed. The petitioners were subjected to prosecution for the offence under Rule 21 of the Orissa Timber and other Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1980 (for short O.T.T. Rule), 1980.

¶17

Page 2 of 5

¶18

3. Heard Mr. G.N. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.

¶19

S. Patra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

¶20

4. The prosecution had examined seven witnesses. To bring home charges the prosecution examined the I.O. as P.W.7 and the Forester was examined as P.W.4. P.Ws.1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 were the Forest Guards, who were examined to lend support to the prosecution case.

¶21

5. By relying upon the testimony of the official witnesses, the learned trial Court found the petitioners guilty for the offence punishable under Rule 21 of the O.T.T. Rule and sentenced each of the petitioners to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to undergo S.I. for two months.

¶22

6. Aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Gunupur in 2(b) C.C. No.01 of 2006, Criminal Appeal No.70 of 2007 was filed by the petitioners before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Rayagada. The Appellate Court while appreciating the evidence on record arrived at the following conclusion:-

¶23

<6. The evidence of the forest officials is that the petitioners were transporting the bija planks concealing them under bags of paddy. Their evidence has not been

¶24

Page 3 of 5

¶25

shaken in cross examination nor anything has been brought out to disbelieve their testimony. 8Forest produce9 is defined under Section 2(g) of the Act. It includes timber. 8Timber9 is defined in Section 2(n) thereof. It provides that timber includes trees fallen or felled and all wood cut up or sawn. Bija planks are sawn wood. Accordingly being 8timber9 the planks are forest produce. Transportation of 8forest produce9 is required to be covered by a transit permit under Rule 4 of the Transit Rules. The prosecution has sufficiently proved that the bija planks were being transported under the cover of darkness concealed under the bags of paddy. The appellants failed to produce any permit for such transportation. They accordingly violated Rule 4 of the Transit Rules. It is settled law that evidence of the witnesses need not be disbelieved only on the ground that they belong to the prosecuting agency. The defence must show that their evidence is not worthy of credence. Insistence on corroboration from independent quarters is a rule of prudence rather than an absolute requirement. In this connection reference may be made to Sukru Behera v. State: (1989) CLT 257 .=

¶26

7. Since the petitioners failed in their appeal to the Appellate Court,

¶27

they preferred the present Revision Petition before this Court.

¶28

8. At the outset, Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that he would not be contesting the present case regarding the conviction, however, confines this Revision Petition to the quantum of sentence. He prayed that benefit of the Probation of the Offenders Act may be extended to the petitioners.

¶29

Page 4 of 5

¶30

9. In view of aforementioned submission, the prayer of the petitioners deserves merit. Even otherwise the case of the petitioners in my considered view is covered by the ratio of the judgment of this Court in the case of Pathani Parida & another vs. Abhaya Kumar Jagdevmohapatra, reported in 2012 (Supp-II) OLR 469 .

¶31

10. Accordingly, instead of sentencing the petitioners to suffer default

¶32

imprisonment of two months, this Court directs the petitioners to be released under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act for a period of two months on their executing bond of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) each with one surety each for the like amount to appear and receive the sentence when called upon during such period and in the meantime, the petitioners shall keep peace and good behavior and they shall remain under the supervision of the concerned Probation Officer during the aforementioned period of two months.

¶33

11. The Criminal Revision is accordingly disposed of.

¶34

Signature Not Verified

¶35

The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Dated the 16^th July, 2024/Swarna, Sr. Steographer

¶36

Digitally Signed Signed by: SWARNAPRAVA DASH Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 18-Jul-2024 19:07:28 Page 5 of 5

Bibhuti Nanda v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bibhuti Nanda v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Benzamin Vs State

Sarata Vs State

Meenaketan Vs State

Palka Bastha Vs State

Dandapani Padhy Vs State

Gobind Arukha Vs State