2026 PLP 938 (MLD)

Ali baig, C.J.

The instant criminal appeal under section 245 (2) of G.B Forest Act, 2019 read with section 561-A Cr.P.C has been filed by the appellant against the impugned judgment/ order dated 06-05-2025 passed by the respondent No.2 (Secretary Forest G.B) in Forest Appeal No. 1/5/2025 whereby the respondent No.2 (Secretary Forest G.B) has dismissed the appeal of the present appellant and maintained the impugned conviction order passed by the respondent No.1 in Forest case No. 625/2025.

2. Brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the instant appeal are that on written complaint of Forest Staff Check Post Jutial Haramosh Gilgit, that the present appellant/petitioner without obtaining prior permission of competent authorities has cut down 02 numbers of live trees (Kail) measuring 88.74 CFT timber which was recovered by the Forest Staff on the spot from the accused and accused/appellant/petitioner has been booked for the offences under sections 41-(B) 41-(E) 41 (F) 41 (N) 120 and 121 of G.B Forest Act 2019 and submitted the case before the Forest Magistrate for legal proceedings. The Forest Magistrate framed charge against the above named appellant/petitioner, wherein the above named appellant/petitioner has confessed his guilt and the Forest Magistrate has convicted him and sentenced him for a period of 06 months imprisonment and also imposed a fine of Rs. 20,000/- vide order dated 05-04-2025.

3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order/judgment the present appellant/ petitioner had filed an appeal before the respondent No.2/ Secretary Forest G.B. The Secretary Forest G.B has dismissed the appeal as well the application filed under section 426 Cr.P.C by the appellant and maintained the judgment/ order passed by the Forest Magistrate. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied impugned order/judgment passed by the respondent No.2, the appellant/petitioner has filed this appeal before this Court seeking setting aside the impugned judgments/orders passed by the respondent No.2/ Secretary Forest and respondent No.1, and also seeks his acquittal from the alleged charges.

4. It is pertinent to mention here that along with the instant appeal the present appellant/petitioner has filed an application under section 426 read with section 497 Cr.P.C for suspension of operation of the impugned orders passed by the respondents and also seek his enlargement on bail.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant/ petitioner argued that the orders passed by the respondents are contrary to law and facts of the case on record, as such the impugned orders are not maintainable and liable to be set aside. The learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner further submitted that the appeal of the present appellant/petitioner is based on solid and factual grounds and the appellant/petitioner is hopeful to succeed his appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner further argued that the sentence awarded to the appellant/ petitioner is short and there is no probability of disposal of main appeal within a shortest possible time as the bar is on strike and the appellant/petitioner could have served his entire sentence if he is not released on bail. The learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner further argued suspended the that if the impugned orders are not appellant/petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss and cannot be compensated by any means. He relied on judgment reported as 2008 PCr.LJ 438 Lahore.

6. On the other hand, the learned legal Advisor of Forest Department controverted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant by contending that the appellant/petitioner has directly been charged for the offences. The learned legal Advisor further submitted that the appellant/petitioner has voluntarily confessed his guilt during trial, therefore, he is not entitled for any leniency. The learned legal Advisor further submitted that the appellant/petitioner has failed to establish the grounds agitated in the petition filed under section 426 Cr.P.C hence, the instant petition may be dismissed in the interest of justice.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length on the application field under section 426 Cr.P.C read with section 497 Cr.P.C and also gone through the available record of the case with their able assistance.

8. It would not be incongruous to mention here that the superior courts of Country have laid down the following principles for suspension of the sentence under section 426 Cr.P.C:- 1) Where sentence is short coupled with delay in disposal of appeal. 2) There is likelihood that the appeal cannot be decided within near future. 3) The appellant /petitioner has served the major portion of sentence. 4) The suspended sentence shall not be suspended where role of the petitioner/appellant cannot be extracted without deeper appreciation of evidence. 5) Powers of the appellate court in granting bail at post conviction shall be guided by the criteria /process provided in section 497 Cr.P.C. 6) Sentence should be suspended in appropriate course through tentative assessment of the evidence on record, if case of the convicted person is found fit for grant of bail. 7) Sentence can be suspended if on re-consideration of evidence the court of appeal is of the view that conviction /sentence is not liable to maintained by slightly touching the merits of the case without record conclusion findings.

9. Admittedly the appellant/petitioner has been convicted and sentenced him 06 months imprisonment with a fine of rupees 20,000/- which is short sentence, thus I am of the considered view that case of the petitioner/appellant falls within the ambit of Principles 1 and 2 supra:-. The sentence awarded to the appellant/petitioner is short and lawyers of G.B are on strike for the last 06 months and they are not appearing in regular appeals/ revisions etc, except urgent matters. Before the criminal appeal of the appellant the petitioner is set down/fixed for final arguments, it is quite possible that the petitioner/appellant may have served out his entire sentence. Moreover, the petitioner/appellant has served out about one month and 26 days out of total 06 months awarded imprisonment, hence, the petitioner is entitled for suspension of his sentence.

10. For what has been discussed above this petition is accepted and sentence of the petitioner is hereby suspended till disposal of the main appeal and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing of bail bonds in sum of rupees 100,000/-with one surety to satisfaction of the Dy. Registrar Judicial of this Court. Order announced. The instant petition bearing No. Cr. Misc 174/2025 stands disposed of. Put up main appeal on __________ JK/13/GB Petition allowed.