Skip to content


Anadi Charan Sahu and ors. Vs. State of Orissa - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtOrissa High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in34(1968)CLT1293; 1969CriLJ827
AppellantAnadi Charan Sahu and ors.
RespondentState of Orissa
Excerpt:
.....unless other requirements are complied with. the provision of sub-section (1) of section 173 permits filing of an appeal against an award within 90 days with a rider in the first proviso that such appeal filed cannot be entertained unless the statutory deposit is made. the period of limitation is applicable only to the filing of the appeal and not to the deposit to be made. it, therefore, appears that an appeal filed under section 173 cannot be entertained i.e. cannot be admitted for consideration unless the statutory deposit is made and for this purpose the court has the discretion either to grant time to make the deposit or not. no formal order condoning the delay is necessary, an order of adjournment would suffice. the provisions of limitation embodied in the substantive..........6 weeks more. the case against them is that oil 22.4.1963 they were found transporting 83 bags of mohua flowers by bullock carts and were detected at a place within the jurisdiction of kamakshyanagar forest range and for such transport they did not possess any transit permit. their defence is that they have purchased the mohua bowers from one jagannath agarwalla who admittedly was the lessee from government in respect of mohua flowers of the pallahara range and that they were armed with the coupe permit, ext. a, issued by jagannath agarwalla authorising them to transport the same on or before 23.4.1963. the findings of the court below are that jagannath agarwalla is the forest contractor in respect of mohua flowers of pallahra range, that ext. a is a coupe permit issued by jagannath.....
Judgment:
ORDER

B.K. Patra, J.

1. The petitioners herein were convicted under Rule 11 of the Orissa Timber and other Forest Produce Transit Rules {hereinafter referred to T.T. Rules) and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 4 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 400 and in default to suffer R.I. for 6 weeks more. The case against them is that oil 22.4.1963 they were found transporting 83 bags of Mohua flowers by bullock carts and were detected at a place within the jurisdiction of Kamakshyanagar forest range and for such transport they did not possess any transit permit. Their defence is that they have purchased the Mohua Bowers from one Jagannath Agarwalla who admittedly was the lessee from Government in respect of Mohua flowers of the Pallahara range and that they were armed with the coupe permit, Ext. A, issued by Jagannath Agarwalla authorising them to transport the same on or before 23.4.1963. The findings of the Court below are that Jagannath Agarwalla is the forest contractor in respect of Mohua flowers of Pallahra Range, that Ext. A is a coupe permit issued by Jagannath Agarwalla to the petitioners and that there is no evidence to show that the petitioners collected or removed the Mahua flowers in question from any forest in the Kamakahyanagar Range.

The appellate Court, however, held that although on the authority of Ext. A, the petitioners could validly remove the Mohua flowers from the contract area of Jagannath Agarwalla, Ext. A cannot legalise or authorise such removal of Mohua flowers to any place in the State of Orissa. The short point for consideration in this case is whether this view of the learned Additional Sessions Judge is correct.

2. In exercise of the powers conferred by Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, the State Government have made and promulgated the Timber and other Forest Produce Transit Rules which are in force since December, 1958. Rule 4 which is relevant for our purpose may be quoted:

4. Transit Permits-All forest produce in transit by road, rail or water shall be covered by a permit hereinafter called the 'transit permit' to be issued free of cost by a forest officer-in-charge of a Division or by an officer not below the rank of an officer in charge of a Range duly authorised by him in writing.

Provided that a Forester may issue a transit permit in oases where no verification at a Stump site is necessary.

Provided further that no transit permit shall be required to cover transit of forest produce in the following oases, namely:

(a) * * *(b) * * *(c) for the transport from the contract area of forest produce purchased by forest contractors whose leases are governed by Orissa Forest Contract Rules and duly covered by a Coupe permit.(a) * * *(e) * * *(f) * * *(g) * * *.

Rule 11 provides for penalties in case of contravention of any of the provisions of these Rules and it is under Rule 11, that the petitioners have been convicted. While Bale 4 provides that all forest produce in transit by road, rail or water shall be covered by a permit, the Rule provides for 7 cases in which no transit permit is necessary. One such exception is covered by proviso (c) which says in area of forest produce of which lease has been taken by the Forest contractor, no such transit permit is necessary provided such transport is covered by a coupe permit. The proviso as it stands only provides for the place of origin namely the contract area and does not refer to any place of destination nor does it provide any limitation on the route through which such transport is to be made. It is found is this case that the Mohua flowers in question have been purchased from Jaganath Agarwalla and they were being moved from Jaganath Agarwalla's contract area. The transport was duly covered by the coupe permit, Ex. A issued by Jaganath. In the circumstances the requirements of proviso (c) to Rule 4 appear to have been fully satisfied in this case.

I am unable to discover any where in the Rules any justification for the view expressed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the coupe permit Ex. A cannot legalize or authorise removal of the Mohua flowers to any place within the State of Orissa. At least no provision bas been brought to my notice by the learned Advocate representing the State to justify the view taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.

3. In the result, therefore, I would allow this application, set aside the conviction and sentence passed on the petitioners and direct their acquittal. The bail bonds executed by them shall stand cancelled and the fines, if paid, should be refunded.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //