Order dismissing an application under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. for leave to appeal. The single-judge bench held the trial court's acquittal correct as the prosecution failed to prove ownership of the cut trees or their location in forest land.
Application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
241
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM No.A-771-MA of 2016 (O&M) Date of decision: November 29, 2016
JFM Committee, Forest Department
...Applicant
Versus
Darshi Ram and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH
Present: Mr.Avtar Singh Bhatti, Advocate for the applicant.
INDERJIT SINGH, J.
Applicant-JFM Committee, Forest Department has filed this application under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. seeking permission for leave to appeal against respondents Darshi Ram, Satpal and State of Punjab, challenging the impugned judgment dated 30.01.2016 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dasuya, vide which the accusedrespondents were acquitted.
It is mainly stated in the application that accompanying appeal is being filed which is likely to succeed on the grounds taken therein. It is further stated that the judgment dated 30.01.2016 is erroneous, unjust and not sustainable in the eyes of law. It is, therefore, prayed that leave to appeal be granted.
As per the record, the complainant JFM committee, Forest Vineet Gulati 2016.12.23 15:38 I attest to the accuracy andDepartment filed a complaint against accused Darshi Ram and Satpal under authenticity of this document Chandigarh
CRM No.A-771-MA of 2016
-2-
Sections 379 and 411 IPC. The brief facts of the complaint as noted down in the judgment passed by learned SDJM, Dasuya, are as under:-
“2. The case of the complainant, in brief, is that the complainant is President of J.F.M., Committee Mastiwal (Forest Department) and the said committee has authorised him to file this complaint against the accused. The accused are residents of village Mastiwal, PS Garhdiwala. On 4.8.2010, both the accused cut and removed six trees of "Tahli" from the land of Forest Department and kept the said trees in their Haveli. Both the accused were apprehended by the complainant while cutting the above said trees. The complainant reported the matter to the Forest Department, upon which Forest Guard, BO and Range Officer visited the spot and the accused admitted before the above said employees of the Forest Department that they had cut six trees from the land of Forest Department and they promised to deposit the fine on or before 10.8.2010. Accordingly, damage report was prepared which was also signed by accused Darshi Ram. Earlier to the present occurrence, the complainant committee warned the accused two/three times not to cut the trees from the land of Forest Department, upon which the accused replied that in case they were found doing so, the complainant could apprehend them and they would be liable to pay the damages. It has further been averred that accused Darshi Ram had made illegal encroachment upon the Forest Land comprised in Kh.No.10//19/2, regarding which, a notice was issued by Range Officer, Forest Range, Hariana for the removal of said encroachment on the Govt. land. It has also been averred in complaint that the accused had also cut and removed trees of eucalyptus, "Tahli" and "jamun" from the passage of Gram Panchayat and had sold the same. The Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat reported the matter to Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Bhunga, who vide letter dated 1.12.2006, directed the SHO PS Garhdiwala to take action against the accused but no action was taken by the police against the accused. As per complainant, the accused have cut the trees from the land of forest department and have sold said trees. Hence the present complaint.”
Learned SDJM, Dasuya, vide judgment dated 30.01.2016, after appreciating the evidence, acquitted the accused-respondents.
Aggrieved from the above-said judgment, present appeal along
with application for leave to appeal has been filed.
After hearing learned counsel for the applicant and after going
Vineet Gulati 2016.12.23 15:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
CRM No.A-771-MA of 2016 -3-
through the record, I find that applicant-complainant examined CW-1 Budh Singh, CW-2 Satwant Singh, who supported the complainant's version and CW-3 Ravinder Singh was partly examined in-chief and has not been produced for cross-examination. Therefore, his statement cannot be read into evidence.
After perusal of the evidence on record, learned Magistrate held that it is nowhere proved by the complainant by getting demarcation etc. that in which khasra numbers, these trees have been cut by the accused and whether that khasra numbers belong to Forest Department. The Forest Department has not made any complaint nor CWs from the Forest Department have come to the witness box to show that these trees have been cut from their land. The statement of CW-3 Ravinder Singh, who had not appeared for cross-examination, cannot be read into evidence nor any document can be looked into produced by the CW-3, as the opportunity to cross-examine CW-3 has not been given to the accused. Even, no jamabandi has been placed on the record, as admitted by the complainant in the cross-examination.
The perusal of the findings given by the Court below shows that learned trial Court has appreciated the evidence in right perspective. In no way, the findings can be held as perverse. At the time of arguments, nothing has been pointed out as to which material evidence has been misread and which material evidence has not been considered by the Court below. Nothing has been pointed out as to how the findings are perverse or against the law and what illegality has been committed by learned Court below.
In view of the above discussion, I find that the impugned
Vineet Gulati 2016.12.23 15:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
CRM No.A-771-MA of 2016 -4-
judgment dated 30.01.2016 passed by learned SDJM, Dasuya, is correct, as per law and evidence and does not require any interference from this Court. No ground is made out for grant of leave to appeal and therefore, the present application stands dismissed.
November 29, 2016 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No
Vineet Gulati 2016.12.23 15:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
1 issue framed by the court
Whether leave to appeal under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. should be granted against a criminal acquittal.
JFM Committee, Forest Department
Darshi Ram and others
INDERJIT SINGH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
