Raghuveer Singh & Anr vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

This revision has been filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by order/judgment dated 08.05.2019 passed by 1st

Additional Sessions Judge, Begumganj, Raisen in Criminal Appeal No.48/2013 whereby learned appellate Court affirmed the conviction of appellants

passed under Section 42 of Indian Forest Act and sentenced to undergo S.I. for 6 months along with fine of Rs.1,000/-each and under Section 16 of

M.P. Van Upaj (Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1969 and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 years along with fine of Rs.4,000/-, with default stipulation

passed in criminal case No.272/2007 by JMFC, Silwani, District Raisen vide judgment dated 24.11.2012.

Facts giving rise to this revision petition, in brief, are that staff of range Silwani (East) got an information that someone was illegally carrying a small

log of teak. The forest staff gathered at Muaar and made a cordon to catch the applicants. One Vehicle i.e. Maruti Omni bearing registration

No.MP04-H-0144 came speedily and on stopping the same, they fled away from the spot. That was chased by forest staff and finally found turtle at

some distance. No one was present near and inside the vehicle. Rasik Bihari Sharma (PW-2) inquired about the owner of the vehicle bearing

No.MP04-H-0144. It was found that seized vehicle was registered in the name of applicant Laxmi Narayan. This vehicle was carrying a small log of

teak seized from the spot. Laxmi Narayan stated that he has sold a vehicle to the applicant Raghuveer Singh and submitted all papers pertaining to

transfer of the ownership of the vehicle. The Range Officer of the Silwani (E) after completing the enquiry, filed a complaint before the Court of

JMFC against the both applicants having current possession holder of the vehicle and registered owner of the vehicle, for the offence punishable under

Sections 41 and 52 of Indian Forest Act and Sections 5, 9 and 12 of M.P. Van Upaj (Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1969. Court of JMFC after

completing the trial and hearing both the parties delivered a judgment on 24.10.2012 and found proved the offence under Section 42 of Indian Forest

Act and Section 16 of M.P. Van Upaj (Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1969 convicted each applicant for that offence under Section 42 of Indian

Forest Act and sentenced to undergo S.I. for 6 months along with fine of Rs.1,000/-, with default stipulation and under Section 16 of M.P. Van Upaj

(Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1969 and sentenced to undergo S.I. for 1 years and fine of Rs.4,000/-, with default stipulation.

Against that conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, applicants filed an appeal before the Additional Session Judge, Begumganj under

Section 374 of the Cr.P.C. registered as Criminal Appeal No.100048/2013. Appellate Court vide judgment dated 8. 05.2019 confirmed the sentence

and dismissed the appeal.

Being aggrieved by judgment passed by both the Courts below, applicants have filed this criminal revision on the ground that none of the applicants

was driving the vehicle at the time of commission of the offence. Laxmi Narayan was the registered owner of the said vehicle. He has sold out the

vehicle to Raghuveer by executing transfer papers. They were not having any knowledge that vehicle was going to commit any offence, therefore,

they cannot be held guilty because there is no connivance or knowledge about the illegal transportation of the forest produce. Vehicle was in

possession of the applicant No.1 Raghuveer Singh. Learned both the Courts below have not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective and prays

for setting aside the conviction and sentence passed by both the Courts below.

Learned Panel Lawyer opposed the prayer and supported the appreciation of evidence of both the Courts below and conviction and sentence

passed by the Courts below; therefore, he prays for dismissal of this revision.

No doubt, the Revisional Court while dealing with this criminal revision is having a limited scope of appreciation of evidence. If appeal filed under

Section 374 of Cr.P.C. and appellate Court affirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, then as per section 393 of Cr.P.C.,

judgment and order passed by appellate Court upon an appeal shall attain finality. If, it is found that Court has not appreciated the evidence in proper

perspective and there is a gross injustice reflected from appreciation of evidence, then the revisional Court can interfere in appreciation of the

evidence.

In this case, the Forest Department lodged a complaint against the registered owner and present owner of the vehicle. It is not disputed that when

forest personnel tried to stop the vehicle, driver fled away from the spot by speeding the vehicle and when it was chased by the forest officers, they

found that the vehicle was turned turtle on side of road. There was teak logs inside the vehicle and lying outside the vehicle, but no one was present

there. It reflects that it was not clear to the forest personnel that who was driving the vehicle but, later on, the matter was inquired by Rasik Bihari

Sharma (PW-2) from the RTO, who is the registered owner of this vehicle, then he got information that the applicant No.2 Laxmi Narayan is the

registered owner of the vehicle. He inquired the matter from Laxmi Narayan. He submitted some documents and stated that he had sold the vehicle to

other applicant Raghuveer Singh. When he inquired to Raghuveer Singh, he denied for the commission of offence then the concerned range officer

inducted both persons as accused and submitted a complaint before the Court of JMFC. The Court of JMFC vide order dated 24.11.2012 found that

both the applicants committed offence and carrying the teak logs without having any valid authority in their possession and found proved the offence

against both the applicants under aforementioned sections.

Perused the judgment passed by the trial Court.

Learned trial Court on the basis of Section 16 of Indian Forest Act presumed that teak logs seized from the vehicle is the property of the

Government. None of the appellants has stated that seized teak logs belongs to him or he is having a legal authority to have these logs. These facts

show that teak logs seized from the vehicle were unauthorizedly carrying in the vehicle. But, learned JMFC Court, on the basis of registered owner

and possession holder of the vehicle, has convicted the accused under aforementioned Sections.

On perusal of the statement of Rasik Bihari Sharma (PW-2), he categorically stated that when he has inquired about the owner of the vehicle, he

gathered information in this regard from the RTO. Applicant No.2 Laxmi Narayan was the registered owner of the vehicle at the time of incident. He

stated that he has sold the vehicle to one Raghuveer Singh and submitted some papers pertaining to it. That papers have not been produced in

evidence as neither exhibited in defence nor by the prosecution. No doubt, the registered owner of the vehicle was Laxmi Narayan at the time of

incidence. It is nowhere explained in the statement of the witnesses that whether Laxmi Narayan was driving the vehicle or the vehicle was driving on

his direction to carry teak logs. Rasik Bihari Sharma (PW-2) also stated that on the basis of the statement of Laxmi Narayan, he implicated applicant

Raghuveer Singh in this offence. The statement of Laxmi Narayan has not been produced with the complaint. He stated in para 6 of the cross-

examination that by serving the notice to Raghuveer Singh, he called him and recorded his statements. But, witnesses have nowhere stated that

Raghuveer Singh stated before him that he is the possession holder of the vehicle. This witness only states in his statement that on the basis of

statement of Laxmi Narayan, he implicated Raghuveer Singh in the offence. None of the witnesses i.e. B.R. Dhurve (PW-1), Keshav Prasad (PW-

3), Moolchand (PW-4), Mathura Prasad (PW-5) and Jagat Narayan (PW-6) stated that before them, Raghuveer Singh (PW-2) inquired about the

owner of the vehicle and possession holder of the vehicle and none of the witnesses stated that Laxmi Narayan has stated before him that Raghuveer

Singh is the owner of the vehicle. No doubt, there is no sufficient evidence against Raghuveer Singh to implicate him in the offence. Laxmi Narayan is

the registered owner of the vehicle. In his defence, he has neither examined himself as a witness under Section 315 of the Cr.P.C. nor examined any

other witness to substantiate his defence that he has sold out the vehicle to Raghuveer Singh and who was the possession holder at the time of

incidence and who was driving the vehicle.

Learned appellate Court in para-13 of the judgment stated that transfer documents filed along with the record of the trial Court are photo copy and

again concluded that there is a prima-facie conclusion emerges out that vehicle belongs to Laxmi Narayan and sold to Raghuveer Singh. This fact

goes to show that the appellate Court on the basis of prima-facie evidence affirmed the conviction of Raghuveer Singh. This Court finds that there is

no sufficient evidence on record to show that Raghuveer Singh was the possession holder of the vehicle and he was driving the vehicle at the time of

incidence.

This Court finds that learned both the Courts below have committed gross error in appreciating the evidence and found Raghuveer Singh involved

in the commission of offence.

So far as Laxmi Narayan is concerned, he is a registered owner of the vehicle. As per the statement of Rasik Bihari Sharma (PW-2), he stated

that he inquired the matter from the RTO and found that Laxmi Narayan is the registered owner of the vehicle. This fact has not been cross-

examined. This fact remained intact and it can easily be inferred that at the time of incident, vehicle was belonged to Laxmi Narayan and he was the

owner of the vehicle. He is the main person, who could explain that how this vehicle was found in place of incident with the teak logs. He nowhere

stated anything. He took a defence that he sold out the vehicle to anyone else and that defence has not been substantiated by the applicant Laxmi

Narayan. When Laxmi Narayan is the owner of the vehicle, the possession of the vehicle can be inferred. It is he, who should explain how this vehicle

was found in place of incident with teak logs. He took only defence that he has sold out the vehicle. Teak logs found in the vehicle. It can easily be

inferred beyond doubt that the applicant Laxmi Narayan is in the constructive possession of the teak logs. It is he who could explain the fact that his

vehicle was carrying teak logs with a valid authority. He fails to establish that.

Learned both the Courts below on the basis of owner of the vehicle was found that unauthorized teak logs were transporting in the vehicle by

applicant No.2 Laxmi Narayan. There was illegal possession of the teak wood in the vehicle of Laxmi Narayan. On that basis, both the Courts below

committed no error in convicting the applicant under Section 41 of Indian Forest Act. Hence, conviction is upheld.

Learned trial Court also convicted the applicants for the same incidence under Section 16 of M.P. Van Upaj (Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyam,

1969 and separately sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 1 year along with fine of Rs.4,000/- with default stipulation. The applicant illegally cut and

peeled off fresh teak wood reduced in logs and illegally carrying teak logs in vehicle. The applicant Laxmi Narayan was violating Section 9 of Indian

Forest Act. There is no need to convict the applicant separately for violation of Section 5, 9 and 12 of M.P. Van Upaj (Vyapar Viniyaman)

Adhiniyam, 1969 and sentence under Section 16 of M.P. Van Upaj (Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1969.

On the basis of foregoing discussions, this Court partly allowed this petition. So far as applicant No.1-Raghuveer Singh is concerned, conviction

and sentence passed against Raghuveer Singh is hereby quashed. He be released immediately and set free, if not needed in any other criminal case.

So far as applicant No.2-Laxmi Narayan is concerned, his conviction and sentence passed under Section 16 of M.P. Van Upaj (Vyapar Viniyaman)

Adhiniyam, 1969 is hereby set aside and conviction under Section 42 of Indian Forest Act is upheld. His jail sentence is reduced to S.I. for 3 months

instead of 6 months and there is no need to change in the fine amount.

In view of the above modification, this revision is hereby partly allowed in regard to applicant No.2-Laxmi Narayan.

With the aforesaid observations, this revision is hereby disposed of.

No order as to costs.