1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3222 of 2006 (Samiulla Khan Vs. State with CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3226 OF 2009 (Shaikh Turab Vs. State) -------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Court’s or Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s orders Orders Mr. S.J.Salunke, Adv., and Mr. G.R.Syed, Adv., for the the respective applicants. Mr. K.M.Suryawanshi, APP for respondent State. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE: 30/9/2009 P.C.:- 1. The applicants seek protection in terms of Section 438 Cr.P.C.in Crime No.104/2009 registered at Parali (City) Police Station, dist. Beed, for the offense under Sections 41 & 42 of Indian Forest Act, under Sections 3 & 4 of Tree Felling Act, and under Sections 66, 88, 129 of Bombay Forest Rules and Section 420 of IPC. 2. The applicant Samiulla Khan 2 (Criminal Application No. 3222/2009) carries a business of small scale industry namely Hilal Furniture Mini Machinery Works at Parali-Vaijanath, dist. Beed, since 1979, under a valid license or Shops and Establishments certification, renewed from time to time, till 2008. Counsel informs, it is renewed even thereafter. Learned Counsel for the accused/applicant submits, he has filed Regular Civil Suit No. 60/2008 against the Forest Officers in which there was an injunction. It was vacated. Then Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 49/2008 was preferred before the learned Additional District Judge- I, Ambejogai, dist. Beed, and the learned Additional District Judge, by order dt.6.4.2009, allowed the appeal thereby restraining the defendants/respondents therein from causing harassment by sealing or seizing instruments used in Hilal Furniture Mini Machinery Works at Parali Vaijnath till disposal of the suit. The Counsel informs, present 3 complainant is defendant no.3 in the original proceedings and he has to now suffer the pain of action in terms of Order 39 Rule 2A of CPC for having caused disobedience of the Court's mandate. 3. Mr.Salunke, Counsel extensively argued as to how the activities of the applicant are in terms of the license and his client is simply harassed by the authorities and as to how there is no infraction of Sections 41 and 42 of the Forest Act as there is no transit or movement of forest goods. 4. The applicants in Criminal Application No.3226/2009 are the employees of the said Saw Mill. 5. The contention that the applicant is carrying business activities under a license conditions, prima facie, is an eye wash as, in the light of the Government notification under 4 Union Forest Act, 1927, dt.3rd Nov.,2003, Explanation, provides that that the circular saw used in the saw mill should be of a diameter of 12 inches or below but it shall not include other small scale units involved in saw mill operations taken up on commercial basis. It follows, therefore, that the applicant herein cannot be expected to operate at their saw mill saw having diameter exceeding 12 inches. The panchnama drawn by the Forest Authorities stipulated and the photographs of the scene indicate that the size of the saw at the unit of the accused/applicant is 42 inches. This is naturally a betrayal to the licensing conditions and apparently carried under the garb of protection from the Civil Court in Regular Civil Suit or by the order of the learned District Judge. Such eventualities cannot be further encouraged and application of Section 420 of IPC is correctly put in in coining as there was deception running in the mind of 5 the owner of the saw mill since inception and, consequently, I do not see any flaw in lodging the FIR against the applicant/accused. Custodial interrogation will only provide the avenues to inquire into the matter. 6. I need not to advert to the allegations of extraneous consideration as has been made in the arguments or in the submissions. 7. So far as the other applicants/employees in Criminal Application no.3226/2009, they do not have any role in the matter. Hence order. ORDER (a) The application moved by Samiulla Khan s/o Hayat Khan (Criminal Application No. 3222/2009) is rejected. The protection in favour of applicant in Criminal Application No.3222/2009 is extended upto 9th Oct.,2009. 6 (b) The application moved by the employees (No.3226/2009) is allowed. The applicants (Shaikh Turab s/o Shaikh Ali and Shaikh Imam s/o Shaikh Osman) accused be released in the event of their arrest in Crime No.104 of 2009 on each of them furnishing surety and P.R. bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs.ten thousand), till chargesheet. The applicants shall attend the investigator on every Sunday between 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. till filing of chargesheet. The observations are prima facie in nature. Applications disposed of accordingly. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE ... agp/3222-09crapl