State’s Leave to Appeal Denied Where Evidence Failed to Prove Allegations of Illegal Forest Produce Storage Beyond Reasonable Doubt

On June 2, 2014, Forest Range Officers conducted a search of a rented premises belonging to the respondent based on a warrant. They seized 892.050 kg of Dhavda gum, allegedly stored illegally and extracted through unnatural chemical injections.

The respondent was charged under the M.P. Vanopaj (Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1969. The trial court (First Additional Sessions Judge, Multai) acquitted the respondent on September 20, 2016, finding that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

The State subsequently filed this petition under Section 378(3) of the Cr.P.C. seeking leave to appeal against the acquittal.

1. Whether the delay in filing the petition for leave to appeal should be condoned.

2. Whether the State has presented sufficient grounds to grant leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court.

The court applied Section 5 of the Limitation Act for the condonation of delay.

Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), which governs the grant of leave to appeal against acquittal.

Sections 26(cha), 33-1(A), 66(ka), and 69 of the M.P. Vanopaj (Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1969, concerning the illegal trade and storage of forest produce.

The High Court first condoned the delay in filing based on the reasons provided in the interlocutory application.

Regarding the merits, the State argued that the trial court ignored cogent and documentary evidence proving the illegal storage of gum.

The High Court, upon independent perusal of the ocular and documentary evidence, found that the prosecution failed to establish the allegations "beyond reasonable doubt".

The Court determined that the trial court’s findings were not perverse or illegal and that the State failed to raise any substantial grounds or provide evidence that would warrant an interference with a well-reasoned judgment of acquittal.

It held that the case was not fit for grant of leave to appeal as the trial court's judgment was speaking and well-reasoned.

Consequently, the application for leave to appeal and the accompanying criminal appeal were dismissed as devoid of merit.