PESHAWAR, July 28: Some forest officers and judicial magistrates dealing with forest cases are still using the Forest Act, 1927, that stood repealed on June 11, 2002, following the promulgation of the NWFP Forest Ordinance, 2002.

Information gathered from official and independent circles revealed that not all the forest officers of the environment department, NWFP, knew that the Forest Act, 1927, stood repealed.

In some of the instances even the judicial magistrates dealing with forest cases are still relying on the redundant law, according to records of cases gone through by this reporter.

Staff of the divisional forest officer, Peshawar range, when contacted, confirmed that the Forest Act, 1927, was still being used to prepare challans (charge-sheets) for submission to the courts of judicial magistrates.

Sources in some of the non-governmental organizations carrying out activities in the forestry sector said that judicial magistrates in Peshawar and Nowshera did not know up to the day that the 1927 act stood repealed.

"Even a judicial magistrate did not know that the Forest Act, 1927, can no more be used after getting redundant following the promulgation of new piece of law," said an expert on legal matters.

The Forest Ordinance, 2002, promulgated by the NWFP governor on June 10, 2002, after being prepared under the foreign funded forestry sector project, replaced four laws that were previously applicable in different parts of the province.

Laws that got repealed following the promulgation of the Forest Ordinance, 2002, included: 1) the Forest Act, 1927; 2) the Hazara Forest Act, 1936; 3) the Kohat Mazri Control Act, 1953, and 4) the North-West Frontier Province (Sale and Sawing of Timber) Act, 1996.

NWFP Environment Department Secretary Noorul Haq replied in negative when asked that why the Forest Act, 1927, was still being used by some of his forest officers?. "Except for the Provincially-Administered Tribal Areas (Pata) where the Forest Act, 1927, is still applied, the new law is being used in the rest of the province," said Mr Haq.

"It is also the responsibility of the judicial magistrate concerned to determine that a case has been filed under a relevant law or whether he (judicial magistrate) has the jurisdiction to take up the case filed under a wrong law," said a law expert.

A senior officer of the NWFP environment department, who has been involved in preparing the new law, said that the repealed act could no more be used following the promulgation of the new law.

He said: "The department may land in trouble if cases are still being constituted under the Forest Act, 1927." The court could overlook, he maintained, if a case had been filed under a wrong section of a law. But if a case had been filed under a redundant act then the court simply could not take it up for hearing, he added. "Cases being filed by quoting the redundant Forest Act, 1927, are not maintainable," said the officer.