Criminal Revision Petition No. 744 of 2006 · Kerala High Court · 2024
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
In the result, the petition stands allowed as follows:
Provisions considered
- Kerala Forest Act ss. 27(1)(e)(i), 27(1)(e)(iii), 27(1)(e)(iv), 27(1)(e)(vi)
- Kerala Abkari Act ss. 8(1), 8(2), 55(g)
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. In the trial before the learned Magistrate, the prosecution examined three witnesses as PW1 to PW3 and marked three documents as Exts.P1 to P3. From the defence side, one witness was examined as DW1. After evaluating the above evidence and hearing both sides, the…
- Para 88. It is pertinent to note that the forest offence pertaining to trespass into reserve forest and collection of firewood from fallen trees, as envisaged under Section 27(1)(e)(iii) and 27(1)(e)(iv) of the Kerala Forest Act, are said to have been committed by the revision petitioners…
Judgment
STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SANAL P.RAJ THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON 27.11.2023, THE COURT ON 07.02.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.R.P.No.744 of 2006 2 G.GIRISH, J. --------------- Crl.R.P.No.744 of 2006 ------------------------------ Dated this the 7th day of February, 2024 -------------------------------------------------
O R D E R The Revision petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.482 of 2002 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Pathanamthitta who were convicted and sentenced by the said court with simple imprisonment for one year and fine Rs.1,000/- each for the offences under Sections 27(1)(e)(i) and 27(1)(e)(iii) of the Kerala Forest Act. Though the revision petitioners were found guilty and convicted for the offence under Section 27(1)(e)(iv) and 27(1)(e)(vi) also by the said court, no separate sentence was awarded for those offences. In the appeal preferred by the revision petitioners (accused Nos.1 and 2), the Additional District & Sessions Court (Adhoc) Fast Track Court-II modified and limited the conviction of the revision petitioners to one under Sections 27(1)(e)(iii) and 27(1)(e)(iv), and maintained the sentence imposed by the trial court. Crl.R.P.No.744 of 2006 3
Aggrieved by the above verdicts of the courts below, the revision petitioners are here before this Court.
The prosecution case is that on 03.10.2002, the revision petitioners, along with two other persons, trespassed into the reserve forest at Avolikkuzhy Vengamuruppu bhagam within the limits of North Kumaramperoor Forest Station and manufactured arrack by distillation using firewood pieces from fallen trees, causing a loss of Rs.100/- to the Government.
In the trial before the learned Magistrate, the prosecution examined three witnesses as PW1 to PW3 and marked three documents as Exts.P1 to P3. From the defence side, one witness was examined as DW1. After evaluating the above evidence and hearing both sides, the learned Magistrate found the revision petitioners and others guilty of offence under Sections 27(1)(e)(i), 27(1)(e)(iii), 27(1)(e)(iv) and 27(1)(e)(vi) of the Kerala Forest Act. Accordingly, a sentence of simple imprisonment for one year and fine Rs.1,000/- each were imposed for the offence under Section 27(1)(e)(i) and 27(1)(e)(iii) of the Kerala Forest Act. Crl.R.P.No.744 of 2006 4
The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pathanamthitta concurred with the findings of the learned Magistrate about the reliability of the evidence adduced by the prosecution. However, it was observed in the impugned judgment of the appellate court that the offence attracted as against the revision petitioners are one under Section 27(1)(e)(iii) and 27(1)(e)(iv) of the Kerala Forest Act. On the basis of the above finding, the learned Additional Sessions Judge retained the sentence of imprisonment and fine imposed by the learned Magistrate.
Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.
The learned counsel for the revision petitioners has placed on record the judgment dated 12.11.2010 of the same appellate court (Additional District & Sessions (Adhoc) Fast Tract-II, Pathanamthitta) in S.C.No.65 of 2008 acquitting the revision petitioners and two others in respect of the offence under Sections 55(g), 8(1) and 8(2) of the Kerala Abkari Act in connection with the same incident which is the subject matter of this case. It is argued by the learned counsel for Crl.R.P.No.744 of 2006 5 the revision petitioner that the falsity of the case foisted by the Forest Officers against the revision petitioner could be presumed from the acquittal of the revision petitioners in S.C.No.65 of 2008 filed by the Excise Department in connection with the allegation of manufacture of arrack by the revision petitioners inside the reserve forest where they allegedly trespassed and involved in the distillation of arrack making use of the firewood taken from fallen trees.
Operative part
It is pertinent to note that the forest offence pertaining to trespass into reserve forest and collection of firewood from fallen trees, as envisaged under Section 27(1)(e)(iii) and 27(1)(e)(iv) of the Kerala Forest Act, are said to have been committed by the revision petitioners for the purpose of the alleged manufacture of arrack which is the offence involved in S.C.No.65 of 2008 of the Additional Sessions (Adhoc) Fast Tract-II, Pathanamthitta. A reading of the judgment dated 12.11.2010 of the Additional Sessions (Adhoc) Fast Tract-II, Pathanamthitta in S.C.No.65 of 2008 would reveal that the revision petitioners herein were found not guilty of the offences under Sections 55(g) and 8(1) and Crl.R.P.No.744 of 2006 6 8(2) of the Abkari Act charged against them in connection with the same incident which is the subject matter of C.C.No.488 of 2002 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Pathanamthitta. It is true that the incompetence of the forest officials who detected the offence and arrested the revision petitioners, and the lack of authority of the excise officer who conducted the investigation are also reasons for the acquittal of the revision petitioners in the sessions case relating to commission of Abkari offences. But, still it is to be noted that the alleged acts constituting the offences in both these cases are inseparably inter-linked making it impossible to presume the sustainability of one case when the other case is found to be unsustainable. Taking into account of the above aspect, as well as the evidence of PW1 to PW3 which appears to be mechanical and stereo type, I am of the view that the conviction and sentence of the revision petitioners in connection with the offences under Sections 27(1)(e)(iii) and 27(1)(e)(iv) cannot be sustained. Accordingly, it has to be held that the judgment under challenge in this revision is Crl.R.P.No.744 of 2006 7 liable to be set aside, and the revision petitioners are entitled for an acquittal. In the result, the petition stands allowed as follows: (i) The judgment
07.10.2005 Crl.A.No.287 of 2004 of the Additional District & Sessions Judge (Adhoc) Fast Track Court-II, Pathanamthitta convicting and sentencing the revision petitioners for the offences under Sections 27(1)(e)(iii) and 27(1)(e)(iv) hereby set aside. (ii) The revision petitioners are acquitted of the aforesaid offences and their bail bonds stand cancelled. (sd/-) G.GIRISH, JUDGE
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In the result, the petition stands allowed as follows:
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Kerala Forest Act — ss. 27(1)(e)(i), 27(1)(e)(iii), 27(1)(e)(iv), 27(1)(e)(vi); Kerala Abkari Act — ss. 8(1), 8(2), 55(g).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 07 Feb 2024. The bench was G GIRISH.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.