RAMESH MAJHI@SRI RAMESH CHANDRA MAJHI vs STATE OF ODISHA
- Court
- Odisha High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLREV No.132 of 2026
In the matter of an application under Section 401 read with
Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. corresponding to Section 442
read with section 438 of the BNSS -2023.
------------------
…. Petitioner
Ramesh Majhi @ Sri Ramesh
Chandra Majhi
-versus-
State of Orissa …. Opposite Party
For Petitioner : Mr. J.K. Majhi, Advocate
For Opposite Party : Ms. B.L. Tripathy, ASC
CORAM:
JUSTICE V. NARASINGH
DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT : 29.06.2026
V. Narasingh, J. Heard learned counsel for the
Petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
1. This Criminal Revision has been filed
assailing the judgment dated 05.01.2026 passed
by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge,
Baripada in Criminal Appeal No.03 of 2022,
affirming the order of conviction qua the petitioner
1 12
Page of
CRLREV No.132 of 2026
affirming the judgment dated 15.03.2011 passed
by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-
S.D.J.M., Baripada in 2(b) CC case No. 37 of 2008
under Rule 21 of Odisha Timber and Forest
Produces Transit Rules, 1980 (hereinafter referred
to as ‘OTT Rules, 1980’) and the order dated
03.02.2022 whereby he has been sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment of three years and
to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, and in default to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for six months.
2. The Petitioner as an accused faced trial in
2(b) C.C. No.37 of 2008 before the learned Civil
Judge (Junior Division) –cum-S.D.J.M., Baripada,
District-Mayurbhanj.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on
02.10.2008, while the Forester of Baisinga Section
and other forest staff were on patrolling duty, they
heard the sound of wood cutting from Sankhirpada
2 12
Page of
CRLREV No.132 of 2026
Reserve Forest. They proceeded to the spot and
apprehended the appellant along with co-accused
persons Maheswar Singh and Narahari Behera,
while others fled. The forest officials found three
green Acacia trees and one Sal tree felled and cut
into eight logs, which were loaded in a trolley
rickshaw. As the present Petitioner and co-accused
failed to produce any valid authority for felling and
transporting the logs, the Forester seized the eight
logs, one saw, one rope, one axe, and the trolley
rickshaw. He recorded the statements of the
appellant, co-accused, and witnesses, brought the
seized articles to the Range Office at Betnoti,
arrested the appellant and co-accused, forwarded
them to court, and after obtaining sanction, the
Range Officer submitted the offence report under
Section 27(3)(a) of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972
and under Rule 21 of the OTT Rules, 1980.
3 12
Page of
CRLREV No.132 of 2026
4. To bring home the charge, the prosecution
examined six witnesses, of whom P.W.1, was the
Forester of Betnoti Section, who submitted the
offence report and seized the logs along with the
other incriminating articles, P.W.2 was the then
Forest Guard of Krushna Chandrapur Beat, P.W.3
was the Forester of Krushna Chandrapur Section,
P.W.4 was the then Forester of Baisinga Section
and P.W.5 was the Forest Guard of Baisinga Beat
and P.W.6 was the Forest Guard of Betnoti Forest
Beat as well as a witness to the seizure. Several
documents were also marked as Exhibits 1 to 6/2.
5. Neither oral nor documentary evidence was
adduced on behalf of defense. The defense plea
was one of complete denial.
6. The learned Trial Court vide Judgment dated
15.03.2011 after taking into account the evidence
on record while acquitting the Petitioner and other
4 12
Page of
CRLREV No.132 of 2026
accused persons under Section 27 of Odisha Forest
Act, 1972 convicted them for offence punishable
under Rule 21 of the O.T.T. Rules, 1980 and
sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for one year with a fine of Rs.200/-
(Rupees Two Thousand) and in default to undergo
further R.I. for one month.
Being aggrieved, an appeal was preferred
and the learned Appellate Court by Judgment
dated 11.11.2021, remanded the matter to the
Trial Court for passing an appropriate sentence in
accordance with law.
Thereafter, the Trial Court after fresh
consideration of the evidence on record, vide Order
dated 03.02.2022, sentenced them to undergo
rigorous imprisonment of three years and to pay a
fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for six months.
5 12
Page of
CRLREV No.132 of 2026
Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner along with
the accused persons preferred Criminal Appeal No.
3 of 2022 and the Appellate Court on an analysis
of the evidence on record and taking into account
the rival submissions did not find any cogent
reason for interference and referring to the
prescription of minimum sentence under Rule 21 of
the OTT Rules the offence having been committed
between the sunset and sunrise, prescribing the
minimum sentence took the view that the
provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958
(hereinafter referred to as ‘P.O. Act’) shall have no
application, which is the subject matter of
challenge in the present case.
7. The learned counsel for the Petitioner at the
outset does not want to assail the judgment on the
ground on merits but submits that non-extension
of the benefit of the P.O. Act and the reason for
doing so noted hereinabove merits interference.
6 12
Page of
CRLREV No.132 of 2026
8. Learned counsel for the State supports the
judgment of conviction and sentence, as imposed
and also non-extension of the provision of the P.O.
Act.
9. On going through the instructions
submitted, it is seen that the occurrence in
question took place in the year 2008 and one of
the co-accused, Maheswar Singh, has passed away
in the meanwhile.
10. The P.O. Act was enacted in the year 1958
with the avowed object to empower the Courts to
release an offender after admonition in respect of
certain specified offences. It also proposes to
empower the Courts to release on probation, in all
suitable cases, an offender found guilty of having
committed an offence not punishable with death or
imprisonment for life. In respect of offenders under
7 12
Page of
CRLREV No.132 of 2026
21 years of age, special provision has been made
imposing restrictions on their imprisonment.
10-A. Section 4 of the P.O. Act deals with the
‘power of the Court to release certain offenders on
probation of good conduct’. The said Section reads
as under:
4. Power of court to release certain offenders
on probation of good conduct.— (1) When any
person is found guilty of having committed an
offence not punishable with death or imprisonment
for life and the court by which the person is found
guilty is of opinion that, having regard to the
circumstances of the case including the nature of
the offence and the character of the offender, it is
expedient to release him on probation of good
conduct, then, notwithstanding anything contained
in any other law for the time being in force, the
court may, instead of sentencing him at once to any
punishment direct that he be released on his
entering into a bond, with or without sureties, to
appear and receive sentence when called upon
during such period, not exceeding three years, as
the court may direct, and in the meantime to keep
the peace and be of good behaviour:
8 12
Page of
CRLREV No.132 of 2026
Provided that the court shall not direct such
release of an offender unless it is satisfied that the
offender or his surety, if any, has a fixed place of
abode or regular occupation in the place over which
the court exercises jurisdiction or in which the
offender is likely to live during the period for which
he enters into the bond.
(2) Before making any order under sub-section
(1), the court shall take into consideration the
report, if any, of the probation officer concerned in
relation to the case.
(3) When an order under sub-section (1) is
made, the court may, if it is of opinion that in the
interests of the offender and of the public it is
expedient so to do, in addition pass a supervision
order directing that the offender shall remain under
the supervision of a probation officer named in the
order during such period, not being less than one
year, as may be specified therein, and may in such
supervision order impose such conditions as it
deems necessary for the due supervision of the
offender.
(4) The court making a supervision order under
sub-section (3) shall require the offender, before he
is released, to enter into a bond, with or without
sureties, to observe the conditions specified in such
order and such additional conditions with respect to
9 12
Page of
CRLREV No.132 of 2026
residence, abstention from intoxicants or any other
matter as the court may, having regard to the
particular circumstances, consider fit to impose for
preventing a repetition of the same offence or a
commission of other offences by the offender.
(5) The court making a supervision order under
sub-section (3) shall explain to the offender the
terms and conditions of the order and shall
forthwith furnish one copy of the supervision order
to each of the offenders, the sureties, if any, and
the probation officer concerned.”
11. On a plain reading of the provisions as
contained under Section 4 of the P.O. Act, this
Court is of the considered view that there is no
embargo in exercise of the powers in terms of the
said sentence qua the penalties as imposed under
the OTT Rules and this aspect is no longer res
integra in as much as in the case of Chellammal
and anr. V. State represented by the Inspector of
Police, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 870, the Apex Court
has laid down detailed guidelines for application of
the provisions as contained in the P.O. Act.
10 12
Page of
CRLREV No.132 of 2026
12. On the question of sentence, taking into
account that the incident took place in the year
2008 and taking a cue from the judgment of the
Apex Court in the case of Chellammal (supra) , this
Court is persuaded to hold that the benefit of the
P.O. Act can be extended to the Petitioner, since
ex facie the offence does not suffer from the
disqualification as envisaged under Section 4(1) of
the Act, 1958.
13. Accordingly, the benefit of the P.O. Act is
extended and this Court directs that the Petitioner
be released on probation under Section 4 of the
P.O. Act, on conditions to be settled by the learned
Trial Court.
14. It is further directed that the Petitioner shall
submit compensation of Rs.5000/- in the Trial
Court within a period of 6 weeks, failing which, the
same shall entail action in accordance with
11 12
Page of
CRLREV No.132 of 2026
procedure laid down under Section 5 of the P.O.
Act.
15. In this context, it is apt to note that, so far
as Section 5(2) of the P.O. Act is concerned, in the
event of default in payment of the amount ordered
under Section 5(1) of the said Act, the amount
shall be recovered as a fine in accordance with the
provisions of Sections 386/387 of the Code.
It is further clarified that the "Code" herein
refers to the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898,
which corresponds to Sections 461/462 of BNSS
2023 (Sections 421 and 422 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973).
16. The Criminal Revision is accordingly
disposed of.
(V. Narasingh)
Judge
Signature Not Verified
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
th
Dated the 29 June, 2026/Soumya
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SOUMYA RANJAN SAMAL
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 01-Jul-2026 18:31:29
12 12
Page of
CRLREV No.132 of 2026