IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

<>

AT JABALPUR

<>

BEFORE

<>

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH

<>

ON THE 12

<>

th

<>

OF FEBRUARY, 2026

<>

CRIMINAL REVISION No. 2105 of 2013

<>

THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

<>

Versus

JUGAL KISHORE AND OTHERS

<>

Appearance:

<>

Ms. Samta Jain - Government Advocate for State of M.P.

<>

ORDER

<>

Heard on admission.

It is admitted for final hearing.

With the consent learned counsel for the applicant this revision is

heard finally.

This revision is filed against the judgment dated 29.6.2013 passed in

Cr.A. No.69 of 2011 (State of M.P. through Forest Range Officer Vs. Jugal

Kishore and others) by First Additional Sessions Judge to the Court of Ist

Additional Sessions Judge, Panna, M.P.

Learned appellate court held that an appeal would not lie before the

Appellate Court.

In the ground of revision, it is mentioned that the order of the appellate

court is not as per law.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that appellate court

should have seen that crime under the Wild Animal Protection Act 1972

was committed and the accused were guilty of the offence and four units of

1 CRR-2105-2013NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:12636

Sagun wood were also seized from Jugal Kishore.

After perusal of the record, it is seen that the order of learned

appellate court is justified. The offence is stated to be of 12.12.2006 and the

judgment of the trial court acquitting the accused in Case No.100/2007 was

passed on 30.11.2010 and Jugal Kishore was acquitted of the charges under

Section 27, 29, 35 (6), 44, 48 (A) of Wild Animal Protection Act 1972

whereas co- accused- Lallu Gond was held guilty for the same offences and

he was punished.

An appeal was filed on 2.5.2011 and learned Appellate Court framed

a issue regarding jurisdiction and gave a finding that it was not maintainable

before the Appellate Court.

It is seen that on the date of filing of appeal was 2.5.2011. Against an

acquittal an appeal where a case is instituted on a private complaint of Forest

Officer should have been filed before this court i.e. High Court under

Section 378 (4) of C.P.C. and not the First Appellate Court, Panna, M.P.

Even in memo of appeal nothing has been explained how that order was bad

in law. Therefore it seems that the appeal by the State was drafted hastily

without proper application of mind right from the Law Department if that

was involved or office of learned Advocate General if that was involved and

filing of appeal blindly without knowing the law is already a big strain to

the time and the expenses of the State as well as Courts. Therefore this

revision is dismissed as not maintainable but subject to payment of cost of

Rs.10,000/- to be paid by the State of M.P. through Forest Range Officer,

Gangau Range, District Panna, M.P. A liberty is given to the State to recover

2 CRR-2105-2013NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:12636

(AVANINDRA KUMAR SINGH)

<>

JUDGE

<>

the cost of Rs.10,000/- personally from the officers who were involved from

A to Z in filing this wrong appeal.

Accordingly, this revision is disposed of with the aforesaid direction.

bks

3 CRR-2105-2013NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:12636