DAS v. STATE OF KERALA THROUGH FOREST OFFICER

O R D E R The concurrent findings of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Devikulam in C.C.No.83 of 2003 and the Additional Sessions Court, Thodupuzha in Crl. Appeal No.146 of 2005, convicting and sentencing the accused, for the offence under Section 27(1)(e)(iii) of the Kerala Forest Act, are under challenge in this revision.

The prosecution case is that the accused trespassed into sandalwood reserve forest, Nachivayal No.1 on

16.07.1999 and felled one sandalwood tree and attempted to remove the said wooden logs.

Before the trial court the prosecution examined four witnesses as PW1 to PW4 and marked three documents as Exts.P1 to P3. The saw used by the accused for cutting the sandalwood tree was identified and marked as MO1. After evaluating the above evidence and hearing both sides, the Crl.R.P.No.1641 of 2006 3 learned Magistrate found the accused/revision petitioner guilty of the offence under Sections 27(1)(e)(iii) and 27(1)(e)(iv) of the Kerala Forest Act and convicted him thereunder. He was sentenced to simple imprisonment for one year and fine Rs.2,000/- for the offence under Section 27(1)(e)(iii) of the Kerala Forest Act. No separate sentence was awarded for the offence under Section 27(1)(e)(iv) of the said Act.

Though the revision petitioner/accused challenged the above verdict of the learned Magistrate by filing Crl. Appeal No.146 of 2005 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Thodupuzha, the Appellate Court declined to interfere with the findings of the learned Magistrate.

Aggrieved by the above concurrent findings of conviction and sentence of the courts below, the revision petitioner is here before this Court.

Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

As already stated above, the learned Magistrate relied on the evidence adduced by the prosecution through the oral testimonies of PW1 to PW4 and the documents marked as Crl.R.P.No.1641 of 2006 4 Exts.P1 to P3 and the material object identified as MO1 towards arriving at the finding that the accused/revision petitioner committed the offence under Sections 27(1)(e)(iii) and 27(1)(e)(iv) of the Kerala Forest Act. It is true that all the above witnesses are forest officials. But the above aspect cannot be taken as a circumstance adversely affecting the prosecution case, since it is not possible to expect any independent witness inside the reserve forest, where the offence involved in this case is found to have been committed. The testimonies of PW1 to PW4 do not suffer from any material inconsistency or inherent defects rendering in unreliable. So also, Ext.P1 mahazar and Ext.P2 Form.1 report prepared by the officers concerned, in connection with the commission of offence, when taken along with the circumstances leading to the seizure of MO1- saw from the custody of the revision petitioner at a place inside the notified sandalwood reserve forest, would clearly point to the involvement of the revision petitioner in the crime. Crl.R.P.No.1641 of 2006 5

The proposition of law upon the scope of interference in revision, in matters like this, is well settled by a catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

In State of Kerala v. Jathadevan Namboodiri : AIR 1999 SC 981, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows: Ordinarily, therefore, it would not be appropriate for the High Court to reappreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion on the same when the evidence has already been appreciated by the Magistrate as well as Sessions Judge in appeal unless any glaring feature is brought to the notice of the High Court which would otherwise tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice.

In Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan v. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke & Anr : 2015 (3) SCC 123, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as follows: Revisional power of court under Sections 397 to 401 of Cr.PC is not to be equated with that of an appeal. Unless the finding of the court, whose decision is sought to be revised, is shown to be perverse or untenable in law or is grossly erroneous or glaringly unreasonable or where the decision is based on no material or where the material facts are wholly ignored or where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously, the courts may not interfere with decision in exercise of their revisional jurisdiction. Crl.R.P.No.1641 of 2006 6

Referring the above dictums, the Apex Court has observed in Kishan Rao v. Shankargouda : 2018 (8) SCC 165 as follows: Another judgment which has also been referred to and relied by the High Court is the judgment of this Court in Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan vs. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke and others, 2015 (3) SCC 123. This Court held that the High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction shall not interfere with the order of the Magistrate unless it is perverse or wholly unreasonable or there is non- consideration of any relevant material, the order cannot be set aside merely on the ground that another view is possible. Following has been laid down in paragraph 14: ” 14.....Unless the order passed by the Magistrate is perverse or the view taken by the court is wholly unreasonable or there is non-consideration of any relevant material or there is palpable misreading of records, the Revisional Court is not justified in setting aside the order, merely because another view is possible. The Revisional Court is not meant to act as an appellate court. The whole purpose of the revisional jurisdiction is to preserve the power in the court to do justice in accordance with the principles of criminal jurisprudence. The revisional power of the court under Sections 397 to 401 CrPC is not to be equated with that of an appeal. Unless the finding of the court, whose decision is sought to Crl.R.P.No.1641 of 2006 7 be revised, is shown to be perverse or untenable in law or is grossly erroneous or glaringly unreasonable or where the decision is based on no material or where the material facts are wholly ignored or where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously, the courts may not interfere with decision in exercise of their revisional jurisdiction.”

Therefore, there is absolutely no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of courts below leading to the conviction of the petitioner for the commission of offences under Sections 27(1)(e)(iii) and 27(1)(e)(iv), and sentence awarded for the offence under Section 27(1)(e)(iii) of the Kerala Forest Act.

In the result, the revision petition is hereby dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court, which has been upheld by the Appellate Court. Transmit the case records, along with a copy of this order, to the trial court, for immediate enforcement of the sentence. (sd/-) G.GIRISH, JUDGE