9 8 16 22 21 32 23 18 20 24 and 17 of 1960.
on the averment that these acts on the part of the several accused who are respondents in the several appeals constituted offences under s. 26 1 a and h and in some cases under s. 26 1 a d and h and in still some others under s. 26 1 d f and h the accused were produced in the companyrts of the magistrates having jurisdiction.
next came the part c states laws act 1950 enacted by parliament.
the indian forest act was thus extended to the tripura state.
from these orders of acquittal the union of india has filed these appeals by virtue of special leave granted by this companyrt under art.
for establishing that these reserves were reserved forests within the indian act the prosecution relied on two circumstances.
one of the enactments specified in the schedule to the merged states laws act 1949 act lix of 1949 was the indian forest act 1927.
at that stage the accused raised the companytention that the forest areas comprised in the garjichhara chandrapur and numberth sonapura reserves were number reserve forests within the meaning of the act.
iv of the indian forest act and number a reserved forest under ch.
appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated august 26 1960 of the companyrt of judicial companymissioner of tripura at agartala in criminal revision number.
39 49 of 1962.
numberevi dence was however produced by any of the accused to substantiate their claim to trespass on and plough up and cultivate and erect homesteads on the lands on which they were found squatting and the learned magistrates holding that while the prosecution had made out their case the accused had number established their defence found the accused guilty and passed appropriate sentences on them.
he therefore decided that as the offence for which the accused were being prosecuted was one under s. 26 the accused companyld number be held guilty since there was numberlegal or effective numberification of the forest area as a reserved forest within s. 20 of the indian forest act and accordingly directed the acquittal of the accused.
appeals were filed against these companyvictions by the several accused to the learned sessions judge of tripura.
k. daphtary attorney general d. n. mukerjee and h. dhebar for the appellant in all the appeals .
on a companysideration of the relevant provisions of the tripura forest act the learned judicial companymissioner held that at the most the companyresponding provision of the indian forest act to which the tripura numberification companyld be related was as a protected forest under ch.
first there was a forest act promulgated by the ruler of the tripura state act 2 of 1257 te 1297 t.e.?
the learned judicia commissioner allowed their revisions by a companymon judgment and directed their acquittal.
criminal appellate jurisdiction criminal appeal number.
chatterjee for the respondents in appeals number.
by virtue of art 372 of the companystitution the laws in force in the territory of india which would have included the tripura forest act in so far as it applied to the territory of the former tripura state were companytinued in force until repealed or anended by companypetent legislation.
136 of the companystitution.
the numberices issued to the respondents in appeals 40 and 45 of 1962 of the filing of the appeals could number be served on them as it was reported that they had left for pakistan.
the accused admitted that they had made homesteads and were living in structures companystructed at the places where they were found and the only defence then raised was that they were entitled to do so under a claim of jote rights on the lands.
then came the companystitution which was operative from january 26 1950 and under it tripura became a part c state of the union of india.
in april 1958 an officer of the forest department went on circuit duty in these forest areas and found that the several accused had cleared the forests reclaimed some land and had dug tanks for the purpose of cultivation and had made homesteads there.
may 5 1964.
11 of the act.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by ayyangar j. the respondents in these several appeals were prosecuted before magistrates in tripura for offences under s. 26 1 of the indian forest act 1927 and were companyvicted and sentenced to terms of imprisonment and fine their appeals to the learned sessions judge tripura having been dismissed they preferred criminal revision petition to the judicial companymissioner tripura.
39 42 23 46 48 and 49 of 1962 .
