Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, Aug 8: Additional Sessions Judge Jammu Sham Lal Lalhal today set-aside the order of Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) whereby ex-Minister Abdul Majid Wani and his brother Abdul Karim Wani were discharged in a case of illegal felling of trees and directed the CJM to frame charges against the accused persons.
The case against the accused persons is that Mohd Hakim, the then Range Officer, Forest Range, Marmat lodged a written report before the Superintendent of Police Doda on July 8, 1993 alleging that the Block Officer Behote has reported that about 300 labourers of Ghulam Mohd Wani, SFC contractor entered compartment Nos. 31, 35-B and 37/Marmat and started illegal conservation of unmarked uprooted trees as well as fresh felling forcibly.
This report was endorsed by DySP Doda to SHO Police Station Doda for necessary action under law and on the receipt of this report, case FIR No.77/1993 for the commission of offence under 6 Forest Act was registered on July 12, 1993. During investigation, timber/wood of different dimensions was seized from the compartments and a total loss of Rs 85,734.22 was assessed.
On the completion of the investigation, a challan for the commission of offences under Sections 379, 420-A, 409, 120-B/109 RPC and 6 Forest Act was produced against the accused persons on January 13, 2011.
After hearing the SPO for the State and counsel for the accused, the CJM passed the impugned order dated November 9, 2013 whereby accused Ghulam Ahmed Wani, Abdul Karim and Abdul Majid Wani were discharged. However, this order was assailed by the State on the grounds that the trial court has not considered the whole evidence brought on record during investigation of the case in its right perspective and has mainly relied upon the facts and circumstances advanced by the counsel for the accused.
It was pleaded in the revision petition that the role of the accused persons who were discharged by virtue of the impugned order has been specifically mentioned by the complainant in his report as well as in the statements of the prosecution witnesses cited by the investigating agency but the court below has ignored the material evidence brought on record by the prosecution.
After going through the revision petition, Additional Sessions Judge observed, “at the stage of considering the prosecution case for charge and discharge of the accused, the trial courts are not required to sift, weigh and appreciate the prosecution evidence and the material placed on records by the prosecution in support of its case and all that, they, at this stage, are required to find, is as to whether or not, a case for proceeding against the accused was made out on the basis of the Final Police Report, the statements of the witnesses recorded during the investigation, the material placed on records and sought to be produced during the trial”.
With these observations, court set-aside the impugned order dated November 9, 2013 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu for being illegal, erroneous and perverse and directed CJM Jammu to hear the parties afresh after procuring the attendance of the accused persons and frame the charges against the accused persons for the commission of offences which have been prima facie made out against them.
“The trial of the case shall be conducted in accordance with law and disposed of as early as possible as the present case is pending disposal since January 13, 2001”, Additional Sessions Judge said.
Follow our WhatsApp channel