Government Appeal No. 3 of 2001
(Against the judgment of acquittal dated 31.01.2001 passed by Shri Jai Nandan
Sharma, 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Chatra in Sessions Trial No. 153 of 1987.)
--------------
The State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) ............ Appellant
Versus
1. Mohan Lal Khandelwal
2. Bhola Shankar Khandelwal
3. Vijay Kumar Khandelwal .......... Opposite Parties
---------------
For the appellant-State : Mr. Amaresh Kumar, A.P.P.
For the Opp. Party : Mr. B.K. Dubey, Abhishek Dubey, Advocates
--------------
P R E S EN T
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR
By court: Heard learned counsel for the appellant-State and learned counsel for
the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal dated
31.01.2001
passed by Shri Jai Nandan Sharma, 1 st Additional Sessions
Judge, Chatra in Sessions Trial No. 153 of 1987 acquitting the accused
respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 from the charges levelled against them under
Sections 379, 411, 413, 414 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant-State that the
evidence of D.F.O., Chatra (P.W.4) was only considered by the trial court,
and as such, the order is bad in law and fit to be set aside.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted
that the main prosecution case has been committed at Lawalong by the trial
court and the court has found that the institution of the case itself was bad
and prosecution has failed to prove that any theft was committed by the
accused persons, and as such, the judgment of acquittal requires no
interference by this Court.
5. After hearing both the parties and after going through the records, I
find that the prosecution case was started on the basis of a F.I.R. Given by
Kuldip Manjhi, Range Officer posted at Lawalong Range with regard to
getting and removing of ‘Khair trees’ from the protected forest and the
informant learnt that these accused persons namely Mohan Lal Khandelwal,
Bhola Shankar Khandelwal and Vijay Kumar Khandelwal have manufactured
‘Katha’ from the aforesaid ‘Khair trees’ and kept them in a ‘godown’ in the
house of accused No.1, Mohan Lal Khandelwal. The police, on a request
2
made by the informant, seized the kept ‘Katha’ and prepared a seizure list, on
the basis of which, this case was started.
6. It appears that during trial the accused claimed that they are Class-I
government contractors and they had purchased the Coupe of ‘Khair trees’ as
per the contract of the Forest Department. They had prepared ‘Katha’ and
taken them to their godowns. The prosecution himself has filed Exts. 6 to 9
i.e. the permit books containing permit Nos. 07360 to 07650 and Permit No.
081751 to 081800 and Permit No. 28550 to Permit No. 285550 and Permit
No. 289151 to 289200 to prove that these permits were granted to the
accused for removing the ‘Khair trees’ and they were also permitted to take
prepared ‘Katha’ from ‘godowns’. They also proved Ext.11, permission
granted by the Forest Department. The defence relied on all the documents
produced by the prosecution and the learned trial court, after considering all
the permits and relying on the return filed by the accused contractors, which
was proved as Ext. G dated 07.11.1983, which shows that 61915 Katha
pieces were transported on the basis of Forest Department, permitted the
No.2855101 to 2855105 and 2855108. The defence also proved the letter
No. 1942 dated 03.05.1983 as Ext.11 to show that all these documents were
handed over to Sri R.D. Subarno on 12.08.1984 to show that Katha recovered
were legal and they were kept in the ‘godown’ with the permission of the
Forest Department.
7. The court has found that since the Katha recovered was from trees
under D.F.O., Chatra, the case should have been lodged by the D.F.O.,
Chatra and the initiation of the case on the F.I.R. filed by P.W.3, Kuldip
Manjhi, who is the Range Officer at Lowalong Range was bad in law and the
case was initiated with alterier motive only to harass the accused persons.
8. In that view of the matter, I find that the trial court, after considering all
the evidences available on the record and the documents, found that the
prosecution has failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubts.
7. As discussed above, I find nothing to disagree with the impugned order
of trial court. I find no merit in this Government appeal, accordingly, the same
is dismissed.
[Pradeep Kumar, J.]
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
The 17th December, 2009
R.K./NAFR