CUTTACK, India, March 11 -- Orissa High Court issued the following order on Feb. 10:

1. The judgment dated 12.02.2004 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Chatrapur, Ganjam in Criminal Appeal No.16 of 2003 (Crl. A. No.95/2003 (GDC)) thereby affirming the judgment dated 23.07.2003 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Kodala, Ganjam in 2(b) C.C. No.1 of 1998 (T.R. No. 41 of 1998) under Rule-21 of Orissa Timber and other Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'OTT Rules') and imposing simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months, is assailed in this criminal revision.

2. The allegation against the present Petitioners is that in the intervening night of 24.07.1997 and 25.07.1997, in an unauthorized manner, the Petitioners were carrying Sal pieces in a vehicle bearing Registration No. OR-07-A-6177. On being accosted, they resisted and, with the help of the police, they were detained and the sal pieces were seized. On the said basis, 2(b) C.C. Case No.1/98 was instituted against the Petitioners for commission of offence under Section 21 of the OTT Rules.

3. To drive home the offence the prosecution examined six witnesses and several documents were marked as exhibits, and of the said Exhibits, Exhibit No.1- the seizure list is of significance.

Neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the defence.

4. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioners and learned counsel for the State.

5. Taking into account the evidence on record and disbelieving the plea of false implication, the learned Trial Court recorded an order of conviction and, not entertaining the plea of release under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'P.O. Act'), imposed simple imprisonment for a period of six months and a fine of Rs.1000/-, and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. Assailing the same, Criminal Appeal No.16 of 2003 was preferred.

The learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Chhatrpur, affirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence and also declined to entertain the prayer to release the Petitioners by invoking the provisions of the P.O. Act.

6. The learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the appreciation of evidence by the learned Trial Court and the learned Appellate Court is perverse. In as much as, there were no independent witnesses save and except official witnesses who were examined. And, though such ground was specifically taken, the same did not find favour before the Trial Court nor was it taken into account by the Appellate Court.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that there is no infirmity in the impugned judgments warranting interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=94g2mG%2B4Dkj9qDi7aqGKGclVSFmmNFZENxnVdl78y9%2FJXTcDo7Tofct%2Fr0pzD6JH&caseno=CRLREV/148/2004&cCode=1&cino=ODHC010287602004&state_code=11&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.