Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shailendra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 January, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:763
1 CRR-82-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 82 of 2014
SHAILENDRA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Prasun Pandey - Advocate for the revision petitioner.
Shri Jai Gopal Chouksey - GA for the State.
(Heard on: 05.01.2026)
(Delivered on: 09.01.2026)
ORDER
This criminal revision under section 397 of the Cr.P.C.,1973 is preferred being aggrieved by judgment dated 03.07.2014 in criminal appeal No.777/2013 by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Mhow, District Indore arising out of judgment dated 30.09.2013 in criminal case no.1545/2007 by JMFC, Mhow, District Indore whereby revision petitioner/accused has been convicted under section 16 read with section 5 of the M.P. Van Upaj (Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1969 (hereinafter referred as the "Act of 1969") and under section 26(1)(च) of Indian Forest Act, 1927 (hereinafter referred as the "Act of 1927") and has been sentenced to undergo 6 months RI with fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation of 1 month RI and 3 months with fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulations of 15 days RI. The substantive sentence has been ordered to run concurrently.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJIT KAMALASANAN Signing time: 09-01-2026 19:32:40NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:763 2 CRR-82-2014
2. The revision petitioner was prosecuted on the basis of POR No.1748/2014 dated 18.10.2006 for committing forest offence with regard to transport of specific forest produce namely Teak wood in contravention of section 5 of the Act of 1969 in Sub-range Yashvant Nagar, Range Manpur Division, Indore on 18.10.2006 through Eicher truck bearing registration No.MP-09-KB-4400.
3. The revision petitioner abjured the guilt and to bring home the guilt prosecution has examined forest guards i.e. Lokesh Shrotriye (PW-1), guard Rahul Dohare (PW-2) and Asharam Dabal (PW-3).
4. In examination under section 313 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 revision petitioner/accused denied all the facts and circumstances against him and expressed ignorance. His defense is of false implication due to denial of transporting the goods of forest officers through his vehicle. Appreciating the evidence trial court convicted and sentence the revision petitioner as mentioned in para-1 of the judgment and the appeal was also dismissed.
5. Challenging the conviction and sentence this revision petition has been preferred on the ground that both the courts below failed to appreciate the prosecution case particularly with respect to the relevant circular of which the violation is alleged against the present revision petitioner. There is no evidence of cutting of trees and damage caused to the trees of the forest. Both the courts below committed error in convicting the revision petitioner/ accused under section 26(1)(च) of the Act of 1927 . Both the courts below committed error in not considering the defense of the revision petitioner/accused. Their story is stereotype and is contradictory. On one Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJIT KAMALASANAN Signing time: 09-01-2026 19:32:40 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:763 3 CRR-82-2014 hand they have stated that they intercepted the vehicle on the basis of secret information but on the other hand they have stated that they suddenly found the truck in beat no.28 of the reserve forest. Both the courts below committed error in inflicting the sentence by ignoring the age of the revision petitioner/accused.
6. Heard.
7. Perused the record.
8. As per section 2 (l) of the M.P. Van Upaj (Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1969 "Specified Forest Produce" in relation to a specified area means the forest produce specified in notification under sub-section 3 of the section 1 for such specified area.
9. Notification dated 24.09.1976 published in म य दे श राजप (असाधारण) dated 24.09.1976 is being reproduced as below:-
"Bhopal, the 24 th September 1976.
No. F. 30-37-76-III-X. In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (ii) of sub-section (3) of section 1 of the Madhya Pradesh Van Upaj (Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1969 (No. 9 of 1969), the State Government hereby specifies that the said Adhiniyam shall come into force on the the 2nd October, 1976 in the areas specified in column (1) of the Schedule below in relation to the forest produce specified in the corresponding entries in column (2) of the said Schedule:-
SCHEDULE Areas Forest Produce (1) (2) Timber of Teak (Tectona Revenue Districts of Rewa, Satna, Surguja (Part grandis), Sal (Shorea, only North and South Surguja Forest Divisions), robusta) Bija Indore Ujjain, Mandsaur, Ratlam, Dewas, Dhar, Pterocarpus marsupium) Jhabua, West Nimar, Gwalior, Bhind, Datia, andShisham (Dalbegia Morena, Shivpuri and Guna.
letifolia) By order and in the name of the Governor of Madhya Pradesh, R. C. SAXENA, Dy. Secy,"
Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJIT KAMALASANAN Signing time: 09-01-2026 19:32:40NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:763 4 CRR-82-2014
10. In State Vs. Gopal Singh AIR 1956 Madhya Bharat 138 Full Bench considered the issue whether judicial notice of Government notifications can be taken under Section 57, Evidence Act and, if so, of what notifications and Full Bench answered the issue in para-8 and is reproduced below:-
"8. For the foregoing reasons, my answers to the questions referred to the Full Bench are that judicial notice can be taken of a notification issued by the Government or any competent authority in the exercise of delegated power of legislation; that judicial notice cannot be taken of a notification issued by any authority in the exercise of its executive functions; that (under the last paragraph of Section 57, Evidence Act, a Court has a discretion to refuse to take judicial notice of a notification made in the exercise of delegated power of legislation, unless the notification is produced.)."
11.The above notification reproduced in para-9 is issued by the State Government. Hence, courts below have rightly taken the judicial notice of this notification. Accordingly, the objections based on the allegations that the above notification have not been proved have no substance.
12. Revision petitioner was apprehended on the spot along with truck loaded with 55 logs of timber teak in compartment no.28 of Forest Circle,Yashvant Nagar, Range Manpur Division, Indore.
13. As per section 26(1)(g) of Indian Forest Act, 1927 the removal of any forest produce is a punishable offence. Accordingly, Trial Court and First Appellate Court committed no illegality in convicting the revision petitioner. The sentence is proportionate and sentence also does not requires interference. Accordingly, criminal revision is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJIT KAMALASANAN Signing time: 09-01-2026 19:32:40NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:763 5 CRR-82-2014
14. Copy of the order be forwarded to the trial court for compliance and trial court shall also ensure that revision petitioner have to undergo the remaining sentence.
15. Record of the courts below be remitted back.
(GAJENDRA SINGH) JUDGE ajit Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJIT KAMALASANAN Signing time: 09-01-2026 19:32:40