State Of Uttarakhand vs Badri Singh And Others

R.C. Khulbe, J

The State has filed the present criminal revision against the order 09.10.2007 passed by the Sessions Judge, Champawat in Criminal Revision

No.5/2003, Badri Singh Vs. State and others, whereby the Sessions Judge allowed the revision, set aside the order dated 12.09.2003 passed by lower

court in Misc. Case No.05/2002, and directed the revisionist-State to pay a sum of Rs.1,13,336/-(the cost of wooden logs) to respondent no.2-Bhola

Dutt.

Facts, to the limited extent necessary, are that a Challani Report was submitted by Mr. Pitamber Dutt Bhatt, Forest Officer, Dogadi, Pithogragarh

before the Revenue Inspector on 05.12.1997. After investigation, a final report was submitted in the matter on 28.02.1998, which was accepted by the

Court concerned. Thereafter, an application was moved by respondent no.2- Bhola Dutt for release of the wooden logs, which were earlier given in

the custody of respondent no.1- Badri Singh. This application was registered as Misc. Case No.5/2002,B hola Dutt Vs. State. In the said application,

learned Magistrate, on 12.09.2003, directed respondent no.1 Badri Singh to release the logs in favour of respondent no.2, Bhola Dutt. Aggrieved by it,

respondent no.1 Badri Singh preferred Criminal Revision No.5/2003,B adri Singh Vs. State and others, before learned Sessions Judge, Champawat,

who after hearing both the parties, set aside the order dated 12.9.2003 passed by the Magistrate, and directed the State Government to pay

Rs.1,13,336/- to respondent-Bhola Dutt. Aggrieved thereby, present revision has been preferred by the State.

It is argued by the learned Counsel for the State that though, it is true that after the Challani report, the said logs were given in the custody of State

Government, but due to heavy rains, those logs washed away on 17.7.1998, and such an act was beyond the control of State. Since the said logs,

which were given in the custody of the State Government, had swept away, accordingly, the State Government is not responsible to pay any cost of

logs to the respondent Bhola Dutt.

Learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.1 Badri Singh also argued that since the said logs were given in the custody of the State Government,

and Badri Singh was the Forest Guard, but due to heavy rains, the said logs had swept away, which was beyond his control, and thus, he is not

responsible for any loss caused to respondent-Bhola Dutt.

There is neither any representation nor anyone is present on behalf of respondent no.2-Bhola Dutt, though the service has been effected upon him

and the Vakalatnama on his behalf has been filed by learned Counsel.

From the record, it is true that on 06.12.1997, the wooden logs, which were recovered from the possession of respondent-Bhola Dutt, were given in

the custody of State Government. At the time of giving Supurdgi, respondent- Badri Sigh was the Forest Guard, however, due to heavy rains, the said

logs swept away on 17.07.1998 which was beyond the control of Badri Singh and even the State Government. The Sessions Judge did not notice this

fact. She simply directed the State Government to pay a sum of Rs.1,13,336/-, as cost of logs, to the respondent-Bhola Dutt. Even she did not get

assessed the loss caused through any competent authority. She, on her own, assessed the cost Rs.1,13,336/- and directed the State government to pay

the same to the respondent-Bhola Dutt. Before passing any order making payment of cost of logs, it was the duty of the Sessions Judge to get

assessed the cost of logs through a competent authority, to collect the evidence whether the said logs were actually swept away in heavy rains, and

only thereafter, to pass any order. However, the learned Sessions Judge failed to perform any such exercise and passed the order, under challenge,

which cannot sustain in the eyes of law.

For the aforesaid reasons, the revision is liable to be allowed, and accordingly, the same is allowed. The order dated 09.10.2007 passed by learned

Sessions Judge, Champawat in Criminal Revision No.5 of 2003, Badri Singh v. State and others, is hereby set aside.

Let the record be transmitted back.