P.A. TO JUDGE tss v. RAMKUMAR, J

BY ADV. SRI.C.K.VIDYASAGAR SRI.P.CHANDY JOSEPH RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANTS -----------------

STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

FOREST RANGE OFFICER, THODUPUZHA BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.K.SURESH THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03 /08 /2007 , THE COURT ON THE SAEM DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: CRL.RP. NO.1115/2000 ORDER NO REPRESENTATION. DISMISSED FOR NON- PROSECUTION.

03.08.2007 SD/- K.R.UDAYABHANU, JUDGE ORDER ON CRL.MP. 5872/2000 IN CRL.RP. NO.115/2000 DISMISSED

03.08.2007 SD/- K.R.UDAYABHANU, JUDGE / TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE V. RAMKUMAR, J. =================== Cr.R.P.No.1115 of 2000 =================== Dated: 21.05.2008

O R D E R The Revision petitioner, who was the accused in C.C. No.168 of 1994 on the file of the J.F.C.M-I, Thodupuzha, challenges the conviction entered and sentence passed against him for offences punishable under Section 27(1)(e)(iii) and (iv) of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961.

2. The case of the prosecution an be summarised as follows: On 1.03.93, the revision petitioner trespassed into the reserve forest at Mylapuzha Bhagam in Keeriplavu beat in Thodupuzha forest range, notified as a reserve forest and cut down a Pali tree and converted the same into firewood. The approximate cost of the timber is Rs.75/-. On account of the above act the Government sustained a loss of Rs.250/-. The petitioner has thus committed offences punishable under Section 27(1)(e)(iii) and (iv) of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961.

On the side of the prosecution, three witnesses were examined as PWs 1 to 3 and three documents were got marked as Exts. P1 to P3. The prosecution also got marked an axe as MO1. Crl.R.P.No.1115/2000 -:2:-

After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Sec. 313 (1)(b) Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence for the prosecution. He denied those circumstances and maintained his innocence. He did not adduce any defence evidence when called upon to do so.

The learned Magistrate, after trial, as per judgment dated 4.4.97 found the revision petitioner guilty of the said offences and sentenced him to simple imprisonment for one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and on default to pay the fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months under Section 27(1)(e)(iii) of the Kerala Forest Act and simple imprisonment for one year under Section 27(1)(e)(iv) of the Kerala Forest Act, with a direction that the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. On appeal preferred by the revision petitioner before the Sessions Court, Thodupuzha as Crl. Appeal No.73/97, the learned Sessions Judge as per judgment dated 23.09.2000, acquitted the revision petitioner of the offence punishable under Section 27(1)(e)(iii) of the Kerala Forest Act, but confirmed the conviction entered and the sentence passed against the revision petitioner under Section 27(1)(e)(iv) of the Kerala Forest Act. Hence, this Revision. Crl.R.P.No.1115/2000 -:3:-

Eventhough the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner assailed on various grounds the conviction entered against the revision petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 27(1)(e)(iv) of the Kerala Forest Act, in as much as the said conviction has been recorded by the courts below concurrently after a careful evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence in the case, this Court sitting in revision will be loathe to interfere with the said conviction. In fact, the evidence of PW1 and PW2, the beat guards who were on beat duty on 1.1.93 is to the effect that they had actually seen the accused carrying a load of firewood on his head. On restraining the accused and interrogating him, the accused told them that the firewood was collected by cutting down the Pali tree in question, the stump of which was shown by him at a distance of two chains from the spot where the beat guards found the accused. They arrested the accused and seized the firewood as well as MO1 axe which was found lying near the stump of the tree, under Ext.P1 Mahazar. Both the courts have relied on the evidence of the prosecution witnesses to enter the conviction. In the absence of any infirmity in the appreciation of evidence by the courts below, this Court will be loath to disturb the said finding. The conviction recorded against the Crl.R.P.No.1115/2000 -:4:- revision petitioner is accordingly confirmed.