Case Note & Summary
The case involves a criminal revision application filed by Shrikrishna Rambhau Orivkar, who was convicted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Akola, on 27.02.2013 for offences under Sections 26(1)(f) and 41(1)(b) read with Section 42 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. The conviction was upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge, Akola, on 12.01.2017. The background facts are that on 05.05.2005, the Range Forest Officer received secret information that teakwood was being transported in a jeep. A team of forest officials intercepted a jeep bearing registration No. MH-30/E-8929 near Jangam math area, Lakadganj, Akola. Four persons were apprehended, and the driver fled. The jeep was found to contain 21 teakwood logs freshly cut, admeasuring 0.911 sq. meter. The teakwood and jeep were seized. During investigation, the accused allegedly confessed, leading to recovery of 12 more logs. The prosecution examined five witnesses. The trial court convicted all accused. In appeal, accused nos.1, 3, and 4 were acquitted, but the conviction of accused no.2 (the applicant) was maintained. The applicant then filed this revision. The legal issues considered were whether the conviction was sustainable. The court analyzed the evidence, noting that the prosecution witnesses (PW2, PW3, PW5) consistently testified about the seizure of teakwood from the jeep in the presence of the applicant. The applicant did not produce any document to show lawful possession or ownership of the timber. The court held that the burden of proof under Section 42 of the Act shifts to the accused once possession is established. The applicant failed to discharge that burden. The court also noted that the confessional statement was not admissible, but the conviction was based on other evidence. The court found no perversity in the concurrent findings and dismissed the revision, upholding the conviction and sentence.
Headnote
A) Forest Law - Illegal Transport of Timber - Burden of Proof - Sections 26(1)(f), 41(1)(b), 42 Indian Forest Act, 1927 - The applicant was convicted for transporting teakwood without permit. The court held that once the prosecution establishes that the timber was found in the accused's possession, the burden shifts to the accused to prove lawful possession. The applicant failed to discharge this burden. (Paras 1-10) B) Criminal Procedure - Revision - Scope - Section 397 Cr.P.C. - The revisional court's jurisdiction is limited to examining the legality and propriety of the lower courts' findings. The court found no perversity or illegality in the concurrent findings of the trial court and appellate court. (Paras 1-10) C) Evidence Law - Confessional Statement - Admissibility - The confessional statement recorded by the Forest Officer was not admissible as it was not recorded under the Indian Forest Act. However, the conviction was based on other evidence, including the recovery of timber from the jeep and the applicant's presence at the spot. (Paras 2-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the applicant under Sections 26(1)(f) and 41(1)(b) read with Section 42 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 is sustainable in law
Final Decision
The revision application is dismissed. The conviction and sentence of the applicant under Sections 26(1)(f) and 41(1)(b) read with Section 42 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 are upheld.
Law Points
- Burden of proof on accused to show lawful possession
- Sections 26(1)(f) and 41(1)(b) read with Section 42 of Indian Forest Act
- 1927
- Confessional statement not admissible under Forest Act
- Circumstantial evidence sufficient for conviction
