GOVT. APPEAL (SJ) No.83 OF 1994 [Appeal against the judgment and order dated 30.8.1994 passed in Forest Case No.159 of 1992 Trial No.478 of 1994 by Judicial Magistrate Ist class, Gaya] ******** THE STATE OF BIHAR--------------------------Appellant Versus MADAN SINGH SON OF RUDRADEO NARAIN SINGH, RESIDENT OF L.I.G. HOUSING BOARD COLONY, NO.C, P.S. RAMPUR, DISTRICT AND TOWN GAYA ----------------------------Respondent --------- For the Appellant : Mr. S.N. Prasad, A.P.P. For the Respondent : Mr. Shivendra Kumar Sinha, Advocate ******** P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH Anjana Prakash, J: This Government appeal is against the judgment of acquittal dated 30.8.1994 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist class, Gaya in Forest Case No.159 of 1992 Trial No.478 of 1994 by which he has acquitted the respondent of the charges u/s.33(1)(b) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and Section 3(a) of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 11.1.1992 at 11 A.M. the Range Officer, Gurpa saw that some persons were illegally quarrying the mines in the protected forest area and, therefore, the present case was instituted. The case of the defence was that they were legally mining since they had licence to do so and for this reason five witnesses were examined on their behalf bringing on record the various documents with regard to the - 2 - same. The trial court on consideration of the case and evaluation of the defence document and witnesses concluded that respondent Madan Singh was a bonafide lessee on the alleged land belonging to plot no.1 of Kauakhoh since 1980 to 16.9.1990 and before 16.9.1990 he had applied for no objection certificate to D.F.O., Gaya. Respondent Madan Singh was also bonafide lessee of the land pertaining to Bodhuchak area adjacent to Kauakhoh and relied on Exhibits-A, B, C and 23.12.2009 which were letters written by D.F.O., Gaya to the Range Officer, Gurpa Range to make a survey of the protected forest area on the application of respondent Madan Singh. However, P.W.2 did not bother to make a survey and, therefore, the court concluded that it was not done for ulterior purposes. The trial court also viewed adversely the fact that the articles, which were supposed to have been found at the place of occurrence during the search and seizure, were not produced in court, which created a doubt in the mind of the court. The trial court further accepted the arguments of the defence counsel that no independent witness was examined and the entire case was based only on the forest officials statements, which were biased on account of various reasons. For these reasons the trial court acquitted the respondent. After having heard the Counsels for the appellant and the respondent and gone through the - 3 - evidence on record, I find that the respondents were bonafide lease holders and it was difficult to say that in fact they were illegally quarrying in the protected forest area. Since this was the sole question involved, I do not need to elaborate any further than this and thus I dismiss the government appeal for the reasons stated above. Patna High Court Dated, 23rd December, 2009. NAFR/ Narendra/ ( Anjana Prakash, J. )