Sohan Lal and Another vs State of Uttaranchal

Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.—This revision is directed against the judgment and order of learned Additional Sessions Judge/IV F.T.C., Haridwar dated 30.10.2002 whereby the judgment and order of conviction passed by II Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar dated 01.03.2001 was affirmed.

The facts of the case are that a criminal case No. 874 of 2000 pertaining to case crime No. No. 12 of 1998 for the offence under Sections 379, 411 Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 26 of Forest Act, police station Shyampur District Haridwar was tried. The revisionists, on the conclusion of trial, were found guilty for the offence u/s 411 Indian Penal Code, 1860. Learned Magistrate has sentenced them to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. For the rest of the offences of Section 379 Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 26 of Forest Act, they were exonerated from the charges.

It has been stated on behalf of revisionists that a litigation regarding the cutting of shisham trees and carrying its wood into a trailer of the tractor, though proved against the revisionists on the basis of evidence, but these trees and wood were of Khasra No. 30, wherefore they had the permission from the concerned department and this Khasra No. 30 was of Gurukul Kankri Arya Pratinidi Sabha, Punjab, which has its branch at Haridwar.

Learned Brief holder for the State/Respondent has refuted this contention of the learned Counsel for the revisionists that at this stage, No. further appreciation of evidence can be made by this Court. Besides, it has been amply proved by four witnesses, including two independent witnesses, that the said trees were cut from the Khasra Nos. 49 and 56 owned by Gram Sabha and tractor trolley was also seized from the spot. It was having cut wood of those five trees and that trolley was recovered not from Khasra No. 30 but from Khasra No. 49 and 56.

In view of the above, on merits, revision has No. force and is liable to be dismissed. But learned Counsel for the revisionist prayed mercy of this Court and requested to do away with the sentence of imprisonment on the ground that each of the revisionists has already been in gaol for 15 days.

So with the above facts, this Court considers that the interest of the justice will be met if sentence for imprisonment is reduced from six months to that of 15 days by each, as have already been undergone by them, alongwith fine of Rs. 8,000/- to be paid separately by each revisionist. If they do not pay the fine of Rs. 8,000/- then they will serve out the sentence, as awarded and confirmed by the Court. The revisionists will be at liberty to deposit the fine as imposed by this Court, within two months from today. Revision is, thus, partly allowed on the question of sentence, while the revision is dismissed on merits.

Let the lower court record be remitted back to the trial court for compliance.