IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 7TH OCTOBER 2008 / 15TH ASWINA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2192 of 2004(D) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27/04/2004 IN CRL. A. No. 167 /2003 IN CRL. A.136/2003 OF ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE/ SPL. COURT (N.D.P.S ACT CASES), THODUPUZHA. CC.No.162/2000 OF JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-I (FOREST OFFENCES), THODUPUZHA ................................... REVISION PETITIONERS/ APELLANTS/ACCUSED: --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SAJU, S/O.MATHAI, VEMBANIVEETTIL, UDUMBANNOOR VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK. 2. SIVAN, S/O.KUNJU, THAZHATHUVEETTIL HOUSE, UDUMBANNOOR VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.E.G.GORDEN SRI.S.K.PREMJITH MENON SRI.G.ANOOP MOHAN SRI. UNNIKRISHNAN V. ALAPPATT RESPONDENTS/ COMPLAINANT AND STATE : ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. FOREST RANGE OFFICER, THODUPUZHA RANGE. 2. THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY SMT. P.P. PUSHPALATHA, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2192/ 2004 ORDER ON CRL.M.A. NO.10170 OF 2004 IN CRL. R.P NO. 2192 OF 2004 DISMISSED SD/- 7/10/2008 THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE scm THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. ------------------------------ CRL. R.P.No. 2192 of 2004 ------------------------------ Dated this the 7th day of October, 2008 O R D E R Revision petitioners along with three others faced trial for the offences punishable under Sections 27(1)(e)(iii) and (iv) of Kerala Forest Act for allegedly trespassing into Pachilappara area, veloor beat in Thodupuzha reserve on 20/11/1996, cutting teak tree and attempting to remove the same. According to prosecution, revision petitioners were arrested by forest guards who allegedly detected the offence. Learned Magistrate while convicting revision petitioners sentenced them to imprisonment and payment of fine but found A3 to A5 not guilty and acquitted them. Learned Additional Sessions Judge before whom revision petitioners filed appeal concurred with the conviction and sentence. Hence this revision. 2. Heard. Learned counsel for revision petitioner submitted that this case was foisted on revision petitioners and A3 to A5, evidence of PWs 1 and 2 are contradictory and unreliable and that at any rate, non-production of the timber logs allegedly seized in court is CRL. R.P.No. 2192/ 2004 2 fatal. Learned counsel placed reliance on the decision in State of Kerala Vs. Ancy Philip [2006(1) K.L.T. 699]. Learned public prosecutor submitted that there is no reason to interfere with the concurrent finding entered by courts below and that the decision relied by learned counsel was reversed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Kerala Vs. Ancy Philip [2008(3) K.L.T. 477]. 3. PWs1 and 2, guards have given evidence regarding the alleged incident. According to them, they found revision petitioners engaged in removal of fresh logs of teak timber through reserve forest on 20/11/1996 at about 6.30 P.M and since time was late, they took revision petitioners to their office and with them, came back to the alleged place of occurrence on 21/11/1996, located stump of the tree as pointed out by revision petitioners and prepared mahazar for place of occurrence and the stump (Exhibit P1 and P2 respectively). M.O. 1, saw allegedly found at the place of occurrence was also taken into custody. Revision petitioners were then produced before PW3, Range Officer who filed the complaint. 4. It is argued by learned counsel that there is no evidence to CRL. R.P.No. 2192/ 2004 3 show that alleged place of occurrence is a part of the reserve forest and that evidence of PWs1 and 2 cannot be relied . 5. Exhibit P3 is true copy of notification signed by the Chief Conservator of Forests and proved through PW3. Marking of that document through PW3 was not objected for any reason. 6. PWs1 and 2 stated and it is mentioned in Exhibits P1 and P2 also that incident occurred in Pachilappara area of veloor beat in Thodupuzha Reserve. It is true that PW2 stated he was not aware of the extent of the said part of the reserve forest and that there are no specific boundaries for Pachilappara area. That statement cannot be understood as meaning that the reserve forest itself is not having any specific boundary. Question to PW2 was concerning Pachilappara area which formed only a part of larger area of the reserve forests and PW2 was not able to say about the extent and claimed that there was no specific boundary for that particular area . When evidence is given by PWs 1 and 2 that incident occurred in the reserve forest and that is supported by Exhibit P3 which was not under challenge, I find it difficult to accept the contention that alleged place of occurrence is not CRL. R.P.No. 2192/ 2004 4 shown to be part of reserve forest. 7. The contradiction pointed out by learned counsel in evidence of PWs1 and 2 is that while according to PW1 they reached the place of occurrence from towards southern side, PW2 stated it as from the northern side. It is to be born in mind that the alleged incident occurred on 20/11/1996 and PWs 1 and 2 were giving evidence in February 2003. Some discrepancy on account of lapse of time is quite possible and undue weight cannot be given to that so far as it did not affect the core of evidence given by them. Courts below relied upon evidence of PWs 1 and 2 which gets corroboration from Exhibits P1 and P2 and after considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel and going through the evidence of PWs 1 and 2, I find little reason to interfere with the concurrent finding. 8. So far as contention regarding non-production of the timber logs in court is concerned though Devision Bench of this court took the view that for successful prosecution of offence under the Forest Act production of timber logs in court at the time of trial is necessary, that decision has been reversed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as pointed CRL. R.P.No. 2192/ 2004 5 out by public prosecutor. PWs 1 and 2 have stated that timber logs were taken to custody. That evidence is corroborated by Exhibits P1 and P2. In fact, Hon'ble Supreme Court also pointed out that it is sufficient that the documents relating to the seizure are produced before the court. Exhibit P1 and P2 satisfy that requirement. I find no reason to interfere with the conviction of revision petitioners. 9. So far as sentence is concerned, learned Magistrate awarded sentence in accordance with statutory provisions as on the date of commission of the offence, which the appellate court also has concurred. There is no reason to interfere with the sentence as well. Resultantly, revision petition fails and it is dismissed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE scm