Case Note & Summary
The case pertains to a criminal revision application filed by Shrikrishna Rambhau Orivkar, who was convicted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Akola, for offences under Sections 26(1)(f) and 41(1)(b) read with Section 42 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, for illegal possession and transport of teakwood. The conviction was upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge, Akola, in appeal. The applicant was accused no.2, while other co-accused were acquitted by the appellate court. The prosecution case was that on 05.05.2005, based on secret information, forest officials intercepted a jeep bearing registration No. MH-30/E-8929 near Jangam math area, Lakadganj, Akola, and found 21 teakwood logs concealed in the jeep. The applicant was among the persons present at the spot. The teakwood was seized, and the applicant was arrested. During investigation, 12 more teakwood logs were recovered based on information given by the accused. The trial court convicted all accused, but the appellate court acquitted accused nos.1, 3, and 4, while maintaining the conviction of the applicant. The applicant challenged the same before the High Court. The main legal issue was whether the conviction was sustainable given that the applicant claimed he was not the owner of the teakwood and was merely present. The court analyzed the evidence, including the testimony of forest officials and panch witnesses, and found that the prosecution had proved that the teakwood was seized from the jeep in the presence of the applicant. The court applied Section 69 of the Indian Forest Act, which raises a presumption that forest produce found in the possession of a person without a license is government property, and the burden lies on the accused to prove otherwise. The applicant did not lead any evidence to rebut this presumption. The court also noted that the applicant did not examine himself or any witness to show that he had a valid license or that the timber was not government property. The court held that the concurrent findings of the courts below were based on evidence and did not suffer from any perversity or illegality. The revision was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence were upheld.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Forest Offences - Illegal Transport of Teakwood - Sections 26(1)(f), 41(1)(b), 42, 69 Indian Forest Act, 1927 - The applicant was convicted for being in possession of freshly cut teakwood logs without any license or permit. The court held that the prosecution proved the seizure of teakwood from a jeep in which the applicant was present, and the burden shifted to the applicant under Section 69 to prove that the timber was not government property or that he had lawful authority. The applicant failed to discharge this burden. The concurrent findings of the courts below were upheld. (Paras 1-10) B) Evidence - Burden of Proof - Section 69 Indian Forest Act, 1927 - The court held that once the prosecution establishes that the forest produce was seized from the possession of the accused, a presumption arises that such produce belongs to the government, and the burden shifts to the accused to prove otherwise. The applicant did not lead any evidence to rebut this presumption. (Paras 8-10) C) Criminal Procedure - Revision - Scope of Interference - The court noted that in a revision against concurrent findings of conviction, the scope is limited to examining whether there is any perversity or illegality in the findings. No such error was found. (Paras 4-5)
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 Criminal Revision Application is dismissed. The judgment and order dated 12.01.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akola, confirming 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, is upheld.
Law Points
- Burden of proof on accused under Section 69 of Indian Forest Act
- 1927
- Presumption of forest produce being government property
- Requirement of valid license or permit for transport of timber
- Standard of proof in criminal revision against concurrent findings
