IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU FRIDAY, THE 13TH JULY 2007 / 22ND ASHADHA 1929 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 166 of 1999() ----------------------------- CRA.224/1996 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, THODUPUZHA CC.202/1994 of JUDL. MAGI. OF FIRST CLASS-I, THODUPUZHA .................... REVN. PETITIONER/2ND APPELLANT/2ND ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------------------------- SALIM,S/o.MUHAMMED, ALIKUNNEL HOUSE, BOUNDARY BHAGOM, UDUMBANNOOR VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.CHANDY JOSEPH RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANTS: -------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. 2. FOREST RANGE OFFICER, THODUPUZHA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. AMHAD ALI THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/07/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER NO REPRESENTATION. HENCE, Crl.R.P. IS DISMISSED AS NON PROSECUTION. 13/7/2007 Sd/-K.R.UDAYABHANU,JUDGE C.R.R.P.No.166/1999 :2: ORDER ON C.M.P.No.608/1999 IN CRL.R.P.NO.166/1999 DISMISSED. 13/7/2007 Sd/-K.R.UDAYABHANU,JUDGE TRUE COPY P.A.TO JUDGE THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. ------------------------------ CRL.R.P.No. 166 of 1999 ------------------------------ Dated this the19th day of September, 2008 O R D E R Revision petitioner is the second accused in CC No.202/1994 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thodupuzha. He, along with first accused faced trial for the offences punishable under Section 27 (1)(g) and 27(2)(c) of the Kerala Forests Act, for allegedly trespassing into the reserve forest,cutting down a teak tree valued at Rs.400/-, slicing and removing the same. He was found guilty, convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 4 months. He preferred an appeal to the sessions court, Thodupuzha. Learned Additional Sessions Judge disposed of the criminal appeal as per judgment dated 10/12/1998 confirming the conviction but modifying the sentence as simple imprisonment for 1 month. Hence, this Revision petition. 2. Heard counsel for the revision petitioner and the public prosecutor. The learned counsel for the Revision petitioner submits that the conviction of the Revision Petitioner is not legal and proper and that at rate the sentence awarded is excessive. CRL.R.P.No. 166 / 1999 2 3. So far as the incident is concerned, Pws 1 and 2 have given evidence. Their evidence is corroborated by Exhibit P1, Mahazar. The courts below concurrently found that the Revision Petitioner trespassed into the reserve forest and committed the offence. No irregularity, illegality or impropriety is revealed from the concurrent finding of fact and as such, no inference is required with the conviction of the revision petitioner. 4. So far as the sentence awarded to the Revision petitioner is concerned, as per the law in force as on the date of the incident the offence under Section 27(2)(c) was punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extent to 3 years or with fine which may extent to Rs.1,000/- or with both. So far as the offence under Section 27(1)(g) is concerned, that was punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extent to 3 years or with fine which may extent to Rs.1,000/-. In addition to that, compensation is payable for damage done to the forest, as the convicting court may direct. As per Exhibit P1, the act of the Revision Petitioner resulted in loss of Rs.6,00/- to the department. While assessing the compensation to be paid to the department, it CRL.R.P.No. 166 / 1999 3 cannot be limited to the mere value of the teak tree involved. The litigation expenses incurred by the State Government on account of the act of the Revision petitioner is also to be looked into. The incident occurred on 13/11/91, i.e almost 17 years before. In the circumstances, I am inclined to think that simple imprisonment till the rising of the court and compensation of Rs.3,000/- payable to the department will be sufficient in the ends of justice. Resultantly, this Revision Petition is allowed in part in the following lines. 1. The substantive sentence awarded to the Revision petitioner under Section 27(1)(g) and 27(2)(C) is modified as simple imprisonment till rising of the court. 2. The Revision Petitioner is directed to deposit in the trial court for payment to the forest department Rs.3,000/-(Rupees three thousand only) as compensation within two months from this day, failing which he shall undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The fine amount if any, deposited by the revision petitioner shall be adjusted in the compensation fixed hereby. CRL.R.P.No. 166 / 1999 4 The Revision Petitioner shall surrender in the trial court on 20/11/2008, to receive the sentence. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE scm