IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Revision No. 11/2004 Bhajan Singh & Another …….Revisionists Versus State of Uttaranchal ……Respondent Mr. Tumul Nailwal, Advocate, for the revisionists. Mr. Hari Om Bhakuni, Brief Holder, for the State/respondent. With Criminal Revision No. 7/2004 Mahendra Singh & Another …….Revisionists Versus State of Uttaranchal ……Respondent Mr. S.K. Mandal, Advocate, for the revisionists. Mr. Hari Om Bhakuni, Brief Holder, for the State/respondent. Criminal Revision No. 17/2004 Jagat Singh …….Revisionist Versus Upper Sessions Judge/II FTC, Udham Singh Nagar & Others ……Respondents None for the revisionist. Mr. Hari Om Bhakuni, Brief Holder, for the State/respondent. 22nd July, 2011 Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. This judgment will dispose of all the three Criminal Revisions titled above. All these revisions arise out of the judgment and order dated 22.12.2003 delivered by II FTC/Additional Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar (Rudrapur) in Criminal Appeal No. 9 of 2002. In the said 2 appeal, the judgment and order the Judicial Magistrate, Khatima convicting all the revisionists for the offence of Section 411 IPC was sustained. By the said judgment, all the revisionists were sentenced, for the offence of Section 411 IPC, for an year’s imprisonment, besides fine of Rs. 1,000/- upon each revisionists. In default of fine, each one of them ordered to undergo additional simple imprisonment for a month. The brief facts, sans, unnecessary details for the purpose of adjudicating these revisions are that in the intervening night of 11/12.6.1992, all these accused persons, namely, Rajendra Singh, Mahendra Singh, Bhajan Singh, Jitendra Singh, Jagat Singh and Sajjan Singh were caught red handed with three bullockcarts having loaded with forest wood logs. The Pradhan of nearby village was called by the police officials, who identified the wood logs belonging to that of forest. So, a complaint was filed by the forest department against all these revisionists for the offence of Section 379, 411 IPC and Section 26 of the Forest Act. After trial, the Magistrate Court found that as the revisionists were not apprehended at the time of cutting or stealing the above wood, so they were absolved of the offence of Section 379 IPC as well as Section 26 of the Forest Act. But as regards Section 411 IPC, all the revisionists were convicted and sentenced as stated aforesaid. Shri Tumul Nailwal, learned Counsel for the revisionists in Criminal Revision No. 11/2004 drew the attention of this Court that the witness could not identify the wood. But this contention does not have any veracity for the reason that it has been categorically identified by the witness as forest wood. He could not identify only to this extent as to which beat the wood belonged. The fact remains that the wood was forest wood. Needless to mention that under Section 69 of the Forest Act, there is a presumption that such wood logs which are being transported through the forest can be presumed to be owned by the 3 Government. More so, the revisionists did not claim their ownership over the wood in question. So, these revisions are bereft of any merit and are liable to be dismissed. However, learned Counsel for the revisionists pleaded that the incident is as much old as 19 years. The revisionists have already undergone incarceration since 12.6.1992 to 16.6.1992 i.e. for 4 days and further since 22.12.2003 to 28.1.2004 i.e. for 36 days, in total, they have been imprisoned for 40 days. So, taking poverty of the revisionists into consideration besides the oldness of this offence, the ends of justice will be met if the sentence of imprisonment is converted to that of fine. This Court is in agreement with the learned Counsel for the revisionists. So, the sentence is modified and sentence of imprisonment is converted into sentence of fine. Each of the revisionists will pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence of Section 411 IPC wherefor they have been found guilty and the sentence of undergoing one year’s imprisonment is done away with. They need not surrender if they deposit the fine of Rs. 5,000/- each within two months from today in the court below. In default of payment of fine, the revisionist concerned will serve out the sentence as awarded by the court below. Accordingly, all these three criminal revisions are partly allowed with the modification in sentence as indicated above. Lower court record be sent back. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) 22.7.2011 Prabodh