Thc High Court · 2025

I'etition undcr Section 397 (1) Cr.P.C. praving tl-rat in the circumstances stated in the affidai,it filed ir-r support of the petition, tl-re Iligh Court mav bc plcased'fo allow this Petition by suspencling the scntence imposed bv the Trial Court ancl confirmed by the Appcllate Court, duly granting him Bail, in C.C.No.802/200t1, on ttre fite of IX lvletropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, R.R.District, confirmcd by thc Acldl. Metropolitan lr4agistrate, Cyberabacl, at L.B Nagar vidc Crl-A.No.528/2013, pcnding clisposal of Crl.R.C. M.P.No.3615/2014 in Crl.R.C. No.2187 of 2014, on such terms and conditions as this Hon'blc Court deems fit ancl proper. Counscl for the Pctitioner: Sri Adil Ali Meer, Legal Aid Counsel for the Respondent: Thc Public Prosecutor 'fhe Court rnade thc following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2187 OF 2014 ORDER: The present criminal revision case is ltled by the petitioner/ accused undcr Sections 397 and 40l of Cr.P.C. aggrieved by the judgment dated 21.10.2014 in criminal appeal No.528 of 2013 on the file of the learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District wherein and where under the judgment passed by the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, Ranga Reddy District al Miyapur dated 30.07.2013 in CC No.8O2 of 2008 was conhrmed.

2. Heard Sri Adil Ameer, learned legal aid counsel for the petitioner and Sri E. Ganesh, learned assistant public prosecutor for the respondent/ State-

3. CC No.8O2 of 2OO8 on the hle of the trial Court, is a case registered against the accuse Nos.l to 3, alleging tha[ on 17 .11.2OO7 at about 3.0O p.m., the accused Nos. I and 2 being the driver and cleaner of lorry bearing No.AP 31V 1689 while iilegally and '*,ithout transit permit transporting red sanders numbering to 258 logs in camouflaged manner keeping them under the orange fruits were intercepted by the forest officials on NH 9 near Gangaram Chowrastha. Accused No.3 was the owner I t of the said vehicle. Accordingly, the forest officials registered POR No.16/05/2007 under Rule 3(1) of Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967 and Section Z9(+)(a)(i) of AP Forest Act, 1969 and after completion of investigation, they hled charge-sheet.

4. After completion of required formalities before the trial Court the prosecution examined PWs. sPW 1 to 4 and got marked Exs.Pl to P6. PWi is the forest section ofhcer, PW2 is forest beat ofhcer and PW4 is the forest range ofhcer, who intercepted and apprehended the accused Nos. I and 2 while they were illegally transporting red sanders. PW2 is forest beat ofhcer. PW3 is the panch witness who accompanied the forest officials while intercepting the crime vehicle. Exs.Pl ard P2 are the seizure panchanamas, Ex.P3 is the preliminary offence report, Exs.P4 and P5 are the confessional statements of accused Nos.l and 2 respectively and Ex.P6 is the measurement of red sander logs. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused.

5. The trial Court, upon considering the facts and evidence adduced, hotding that the accused failed to produce any valid licence or permit to transport the red sander wood logs and that the accused have confessed their such act before the witnesses found the accused No.1 guilty of the charges offences I Page 3 of7 convicted under Section 24a(21 of Cr'P'C', and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,0O0/- and in default to sufler simple imprisonment lor one month for the offence punisl'rable under Section 2g(2]r(bl of AP Forest Act, 1967. Since, the prosecution could not collect any evidence to connect accused No 3 to the act of illegal transportation of red sander u'ood, the trial Court acquitted accused No.3 of the charged offence'

6. Aggrieved by the said findings, the accused No' 1 preferred Criminal Appeal No.528 of 2013 before the learned Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District which was dismissed by the appellate Court holding that the evidence on record shou's posscssion of 258 logs of red sander wood by the accused No.l in contrary lo the Section 32 of AP Forest Act, 1967 and that the trial Court had carefullY and meticulously scrutiuized the lacts and circumstances of the case and also the evidence adduced and hence, there is no necessity of interference with the hndings of the trial Court'

7. Aggrieved by the hndings of both the trial Court and appellate Court, the accused No. 1/ petitioner preferred the present criminai revision case mainly contending that the trial Court and the appellate Court failed to appreciate the fact that the prpperty I I Page ,l of 7 seized was not placed by the authorized oflicer before the officer, who is not below the rank of Assistant Conservator of Forest, as contemplated under Section aa Q) of AP Forest Act; the forest ofhcer not recorded his grounds of belief, as contemplated under Section 53 of AP Forest Act, Ex.P4 is not a confessional statement of accused No.1 but it is an exculpatory one and it shows that the petitioner had no knowledge of loading of red sander in the crime vehicle topped with orange fruits and that PW3 and another person Shanker Reddy (LW2) who acted as mediators are not independent witnesses but they were the Forest Department oflicials and hence, their evidence to frx the liabitity on the accused cannot be taken into consideration.

8. On the other hand, learned assistant public prosecutor vehemently opposed the present criminal revision case manly contending that both the trial and appellate Court have passed their respective judgments by taking into consideration the evidence available on record and the proposition of law and hence, the grounds urged through this revision do not warrant interference of this Court with the said well-reasoned hndings.

9. This Court perused the entire material available on record including the impugned judgments of the trial and appellate Courts as well as the proposition of law. It is an Page 5 of7 admitted fact that the accused was intercepted while transporting the red sander wood without valid permit or licence and that it is not the case of the defence that the accused had grown up the trees and by cutting the said trees and transporting red sander wood. Further. it is also not the case of the defence that the red sander wood seized is marked by forest officer for transportation or a licence is given by the Divisional Forest Ofhcer. In such scenario, Section 60 of the Act speaks that whether in any proceedings taken under the Act or in consequence of anything done under this Act, a question arose as to whelher any forest produce is the property of Government and such product shali be presumed to be the property of Central or State (iovernment as the case may be until the contrary is proved. In the present case the accused failed to produce any proof to substanliate thcir act of transporting the red sander wood. Further, the accused have made confession by duly signing on the said statements agreeing their transporting the red sander wood illegally and without any valid licence or permit.

10. When the judgments of both the trial Court and appellate Court are carefully perused, both the Courts have appreciated the evidence in right perspective and gave concurrent I Iindingl which findings, in my considered opinion cannot be Page 6 of7 : treated as erroneous. In that view of the matter, the grounds urged through this revision cannot hold good. warranting interference o[ this Court with the said hndings.

11. Record goes to show that the incident occurred in the year 2OO7 and since then the pe[itioner has been roaming around the Courts to defend himself from the case by facing mental agony and trauma. Further, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year by the trial Court and the appellate Court had confirmed the same. The petitioner was in jail for two and half months so far. In that view of the matter, this Court deems it appropriate to take a lenient vien in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, the sentence of imprisonment of one year imposed by the trial Court and confirmed by the appellate against the petitioner is reduced to that of the period which he had already undergone while upholding the fine amount. Except the above modihcation with regard to the period of imprisonment imposed against the petitioner/ accused, the present criminal revision case in al1 other aspects stards dismissed.

12. In the result, the present criminal revlslon case 1s dismissed I l'age 7 of 7 l

13. As a sequel, misceilaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/. MOHD. ISMAIL DqPUTY REGISTRAR Ni,o" oFFrcER f To,

1. The Additional Mctlopolitan Sessions Court, Ranga Reddr' [)istrict at 1..B. Nagar 2. The IX-Metrpolitan Magistrate, Cl,berabad Kukatpally at Ir4i1,aptr1. 3. One CC to Sri ADIL ALI MEER, Advocate (Legal Aid). 4. One CC to the Public Prosecutor, High Court Builclings, Ilvderabacl. [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copics- JCK/gtl I I I I I I HIGHCOURT DATED:27/0'1./2025 ORDER CRLRC.No.2'I87 of 2014 l ! ) -:--' I rHl : - J> _j (J .I ,.9 17 JUL ?02ii .-,,. c)I PArCH + l)ismissing thc Criminal Revision case b\