E-Paper
Forest Act violation case: Mohali court upholds WWICS owner’s 2009 conviction but no jail
As per the order, Sandhu will serve his sentence under the supervision of a probation officer, instead of being jailed; Sandhu’s counsel Amit Mandkan said they will challenge this sentence and file a revision petition before a higher court.
The court of additional sessions judge Prashant Verma on Monday upheld the 2009 conviction of Colonel Baljit Singh Sandhu (retd), the owner of World Wide Immigration Consultancy Services (WWICS), for violating Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, by constructing a resort on a forest land in Mohali’s Karoran village. However, instead of sentencing him to jail, the court granted him probation. Probation in criminal cases allows a convicted person to avoid incarceration and remain in the community but under supervision.
As per the order, Sandhu will serve his sentence under the supervision of a probation officer, instead of being jailed. Sandhu’s counsel Amit Mandkan said they will challenge this sentence and file a revision petition before a higher court.
The case stems from a judgment dated September 17, 2009, issued by the chief judicial magistrate, Rupnagar, convicting Sandhu for violating Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980. The conviction was specifically under Section 3(A) of the Act, which prescribes penalties for contraventions of Section 2.
The accused had filed an application under Section 359(5) (corresponding to Section 320 of the CrPC, 1973) seeking compounding of the offence. Compounding refers to settlement of certain criminal cases by allowing the complainant to withdraw their complaint in exchange for some compensation or resolution. The plea was based on Section 68 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, which allows certain offences to be compounded by the forest officer.
Sandhu contended that the land in question, being treated as forest land under the Indian Forest Act, 1927, should allow compounding of the offence. However, his application had earlier been rejected by the Mohali divisional forest officer.
The state government strongly opposed the plea, arguing that the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, contains no provision for compounding offences. It further maintained that Section 68 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, applies only to violations specified within that Act, and thus, Sandhu’s application was legally untenable.
Despite rejecting the compounding plea, the court showed leniency by granting probation, giving the convict a chance to demonstrate compliance with the law under supervised conditions.
