IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION No 1061 of 1989
For Approval and Signature:
Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE K.R.VYAS
============================================================
1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
to see the judgements?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
of the judgement?
4. Whether this case involves a substantial question
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder?
5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge?
1 to 5 No.
————————————————————–
DY.CONSERVETOR OF FORESTS
Versus
RAMESHBHAI RAMRCHAND SHAH
————————————————————–
Appearance:
MR.K.P.RAVAL, ADDL.,PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the
Petitioners.
MR NILESH M SHAH for the Respondent .
————————————————————–
CORAM : MR.JUSTICE K.R.VYAS
Date of decision: 28/10/96
ORAL JUDGEMENT
The petitioners by this petition under Article
227 of the Constitution of India have challenged the
judgment and order dated 6-6-89 passed by the Additional
Sessions Judge, Bharuch in Criminal Appeal No. 22/88
setting aside the order passed by the Deputy Conservator
of Forest, Rajpipla ( East ). By virtue of the order
passed by the Deputy Conservator of Forest, the tempo
belonging to the respondent has been confiscated for
carrying forest goods.
Mr. K.P.Raval, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor, appearing for the petitioners, has submitted
that the order passed in appeal by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge is without jurisdiction as, in his
submission, the learned Additional Sessions Judge is not
competent to decide an appeal under section 61-D of the
Forerst Act. In support of his submission, reliance is
placed on the decision of this Court in the case of State
of Gujarat vs Siddik Haji Ibrahim Patel (1996) 1 Guj.L.R.
798. This Court has taken a view that section 61-D of
the Forest Act confers jurisdiction on persona designata
, namely, the Sessions Judge, and hence, the Sessions
Judge can alone hear the appeal. The order of the
Additional Sessions Judge is, therefore, without
jurisdiction and liable to be quashed under Article 226
of the Constitution of India. In view of the ruling of
this Court , it is required to be held that the order
passed in appeal by the learned Additional Sessions Judge
is without jurisdiction. In the circumstances, the
matter is required to be remanded to the learned Sessions
Judge, Bharuch to hear and decide the appeal afresh in
accordance with law.
In the result, this petition is allowed. The
judgment and order dated 6-6-89 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Bharuch in Criminal Appeal No.
22/88 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the
learned Sessions Judge,Bharuch for hearing and disposal
of the said appeal afresh in accordance with law.
Considering the fact that the alleged offence under the
Forest Act had taken place on 12-1-87, the learned
Sessions Judge is directed to give top priority to the
said appeal and decide the same within four weeks from
the receipt of the writ of this Court. Rule is made
absolute accordingly with no order as to costs.
_________
Verified copy