1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 256 OF 1998 The State of Maharashtra .. appellant vs Ellappa Maruti More r/o Malumbra Tq.Tuljapur, District Osmanabad. .. respondent -------- Shri B.V.Wagh, A.P.P. for the appellant. Smt. Netrai Gangwal (Jain) Adv.for respondent. Coram: P.R. Borkar, J. Date : 16.02.2010 P. C. 1. In this appeal, presence of accused is sought to be secured. However, considering the nature of the offence alleged and the police report, the learned A.P.P. and learned Advocate Smt. Netrali Jain argued the appeal on merits. 2. Briefly stated, the appeal is against the order passed on 24.2.1998 by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmednagar, in R.C.C. No. 505 of 1993, thereby acquitting the respondent-accused of the offences punishable under Sections 41 and 79 of the Indian Forest Act read with Section 34 of I.P.C. 2 3. It is the case of the prosecution that on 27.4.1993 at about 2.00 p.m., on Nagar-Manmad highway in M.I.D.C. area, truck bearing No.MTS-7335 was stopped by police. On enquiry, it was revealed that the accused was carrying sandal wood and sandal powder. The truck was destined to Indore. There was no permit for transport and, therefore, the articles in the truck were attached and handed over to the forest department. Charge-sheet was submitted. Accused No.1 was absconding and so the trial proceeded against accused No.2 (present respondent). 4. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined panch Vasant Kamlakar, R.F.O. Suresh Wagh, P.S.I. Ramkrishn Avhad and I.F.O. Daulatrao Udande. The main reason for acquittal is that the sandal wood in question was released by the court at Mangalvedha and was being transported under oral permission. the wood was not hammer-marked. 5. It was the defence of the accused that previously also the forest department gave assurance that permit would be granted subsequently, but wood can be transported earlier. The respondent had made an application for permit and waited for six months and lastly, he was told that there being order of the court to release the property, he could transport the same and in spite of that, he was prosecuted. Ordinarily, this would not have been good defence, but in the present case it is admitted position that application for permit was made by accused which was not decided for several months. 3 6. The learned Judge observed that the forest authorities could have either rejected or refused the permit. However, the application was kept pending without decision of either refusal or grant of permit. An understanding was given to the accused that he could transport the sandal wood. The trial court has observed that from the very admissions of the R.F.O. and submission of the accused, defence is proved to the satisfaction of the court. The court was also not satisfied and therefore declined to believe new case sought to be made out in the evidence that the sandal wood attached was freshly cut. The view taken by the learned Trial Court is based on evidence and in view of admissions on record, is not a perverse view. 7. In the circumstances, in my opinion, this is not a case requiring interference in the order of acquittal. Hence, appeal is dismissed. pnd/criapl256.98 (P.R.BORKAR, J.)