State of H.P. vs Basie

Bhawani Singh, J.—The State has challenged the acquittal of the accused by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Theog in case No. 8/1 of 1985, u/s 33 of the Indian Forest Act.

The prosecution case is that he cut two trees of Deodar and Kial varities from undemarcated protected forest U. 332 Paltan Forest. On 14-1-1984, while forest Guard Bhagat Ram was patrolling this forest, he found two trees of Deodar and Kial illicitly felled and none was there but 10 galtus were lying on the spot out of which four were of Kail and six were of Deodar. Since the house of the accused was nearby, he was called by the Forest Guard on the spot and asked in the presence of Shiv Lal (PW-2) whether he had cut the trees. The accused made extra judicial confession as a result of which Damage Report (Ex. PA) and Iqbalnama (Ex. PB) was prepared. The accused also signed the Iqbalnama thereby admitting the commission of the offence. The Block Officer also investigated into the matter and recorded the statements of Tara Chand and Shiv Lal pertaining to this case. He demanded compensation from the accused but on his failure to pay the same, the challan was filed against him.

The accused, in his statement, denied having committed any offence and claimed trial. The trial ended in the acquittal of the accused on the ground that the trial court found that Notification declaring the forest as "undemarcated protected forest" was not proved which was necessary before the accused could be punished for the commission of the offence. But for this conclusion, on this aspect, the trial Court found that the trees were cut by the accused and he had admitted the damage report and confessional statement thereby admitting the commission of the guilt.

The matter has been perused quite carefully. The findings of the trial court relating to the commission of the offence of the accused are correct and they are confirmed, but the finding of the trial Court that the prosecution failed to prove the Notification u/s 33 of the Indian Forest Act, cannot be up-held for the reasons that there was no dispute that the forest was not a Government forest. The accused has not disputed this aspect of the case anywhere during the course of trial. Moreover, Section 114(e) of Evidence Act raises presumption that all official acts are presumed to have been regularly performed. Taking this view of the matter, the conclusion of the Trial Court on this aspect is erroneous and is accordingly set aside.

The result of the aforesaid examination is that there is merit in this appeal and the same is allowed. The accused is convicted u/s 33 of the Indian Forest Act.

Now the question arises as to what punishment should be awarded to the accused. Shri Ram Murti Bisht, learned Counsel for the state urges that the accused should be given exemplary punishment since illicit felling of trees in the State has been on large scale and it is in the interest of nation and the State to protect the ecology and revenue. Persons resorting to illicit felling of trees for petty economic gains should, therefore, be dealt with sternly, learned Counsel for the State urges. Reference to Article 48-A inserted in Part-IV of the constitution of India by the Constitution (Forty Second Amendment) Act, 1976, was also made.

It reads as under:

48-A. Protection and improvement of environment and safeguarding of forest and wild life.-The State shall endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wild life of the country.

By the same amendment, Chapter IV-dealing with Fundamental Duties was added, relevant part whereof is quoted as under:

51-A: Fundamental duties. It shall be the duty of every citizen of India-

(g) to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life, and to have compassion for living creatures.

I agree with the aforesaid submissions of the counsel for the State, however, it appears that the accused had not cut the trees for any economic gain. Galtus, in question are used for preparing Apple boxes. This appears to be his first offence and it was committed on 14-1-1984. More than 6 years have passed, therefore, it May not be desirable to send the accused to jail. The interest of justice would be served in case he is directed to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of the same, he will undergo simple imprisonment for three months.