Case Note & Summary
The State of Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli filed an appeal against the acquittal of respondent no.1, Kishan Navsu Dodia, by the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 31st December 1999. The respondent was charged under Section 26(1)(d) and (h) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, for trespassing and grazing cattle in a reserved forest. The High Court examined the procedural requirements under the Act, particularly Sections 3, 4, 6, 20, and 23, which outline the process for constituting a reserved forest. The court noted that under Section 20, a notification must be issued in the Official Gazette declaring the land as a reserved forest. The prosecution did not produce any such notification to establish that the land was indeed a reserved forest. The court held that without proof of the notification under Section 20, the land cannot be deemed a reserved forest, and therefore, the offence under Section 26(1)(d) and (h) is not made out. The appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal was upheld. The court also noted that the appellant was not represented, and the respondent's counsel argued that the land was not a reserved forest. The judgment emphasizes the importance of strict compliance with statutory procedures for declaring reserved forests.
Headnote
A) Forest Law - Reserved Forest - Notification under Section 20 - Burden of Proof - The prosecution must prove that the land is a reserved forest by producing the notification under Section 20 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. In the absence of such notification, the accused cannot be convicted for trespass or cattle grazing under Section 26(1)(d) and (h). The trial court's acquittal was upheld as the State failed to produce the notification. (Paras 5-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the land in question was a reserved forest under the Indian Forest Act, 1927, and whether the accused could be convicted under Section 26(1)(d) and (h) of the Act without proof of notification under Section 20.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The order and judgment of acquittal passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 31st December 1999 is upheld.
Law Points
- Burden of proof on prosecution to establish land as reserved forest
- Requirement of notification under Section 20 of Indian Forest Act
- 1927
- Acquittal upheld in absence of essential notification
Case Details
Criminal Appeal No.321 of 2003
None for appellant, Ms. Trupti Khamkar i/b. S.V. Marwadi for respondent no.1, Ms. Anamika Malhotra, APP for respondent no.2
The State Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Silvassa
Kishan Navsu Dodia, The State of Maharashtra
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against acquittal under Indian Forest Act
Remedy Sought
State sought conviction of respondent no.1 under Section 26(1)(d) and (h) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927
Filing Reason
State appealed against the acquittal of the accused by the Chief Judicial Magistrate
Previous Decisions
Chief Judicial Magistrate acquitted the accused on 31st December 1999
Issues
Whether the land in question was a reserved forest under the Indian Forest Act, 1927
Whether the accused could be convicted under Section 26(1)(d) and (h) without proof of notification under Section 20
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant (State) argued that the accused trespassed and grazed cattle in a reserved forest
Respondent no.1 argued that the land was not a reserved forest as no notification under Section 20 was produced
Ratio Decidendi
For a conviction under Section 26(1)(d) and (h) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, the prosecution must prove that the land is a reserved forest by producing the notification under Section 20 of the Act. In the absence of such notification, the land cannot be deemed a reserved forest, and the accused cannot be convicted.
Judgment Excerpts
This is an appeal filed by the State impugning an order and judgment dated 31st December 1999 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate acquitting the accused/respondent no.1 of charge levelled against him under Section 26 (1) (d) and (h) of the Indian Forest Act.
Under Section 20 of the said Act, a notification is issued in the Official Gazette specifying definitely, according to boundary-marks erected or otherwise, the limits of the forest which is to be reserved and declaring the same to be reserved from a date fixed by the notification.
The prosecution has not produced any notification under Section 20 of the said Act to show that the land in question is a reserved forest. Therefore, the acquittal is proper.
Procedural History
The Chief Judicial Magistrate acquitted the accused on 31st December 1999. The State filed Criminal Appeal No.321 of 2003 before the Bombay High Court against the acquittal. The High Court heard the appeal and dismissed it on 26th November 2019.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Forest Act, 1927: Section 26(1)(d), Section 26(1)(h), Section 3, Section 4, Section 6, Section 20, Section 23
