IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER THURSDAY, THE 22ND MAY 2008 / 1ST JYAISHTA 1930 CRL.A.No. 922 of 2001(C) ------------------------------------ CC.170/1996 OF JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II(FOREST OFFENCES), PUNALUR. .................... APPELLANT/ COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------ STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. JAI GEORGE. RESPONDENTS/ ACCUSED: ---------------------------------------- 1. SIVARAMAPANICKER SURENDRAN, ANAPPARA KARIKKUNNU PUTHEN VEEDU, VITHURA VILLAGE, NEDUMANGADU TALUK. 2. MATHEYEN KANI BHASKARAN KANI, CHEMBIKUNNU KANI SETTLEMENT, THENNUR VILLAGE, NEDUMANGAD TALUK. 3. PATHMANABHAN KANI BALAKRISHNAN KANI, CHEMBIKUNNU KANI SETTLEMENT, PADINJATTINKARA VEEDU, VITHURA VILLAGE, NEDUMANGADU TALUK. ADV. SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN FOR R1 & R2, ADV. SRI.K.SATHEESH KUMAR FOR R1 & R2. THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. A.K. Basheer, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.A.No. 922 of 2001-C - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 22nd day of May, 2008. Judgment This revision petition, which is at the instance of the State, is directed against the order of acquittal passed by the trial court. By the impugned order, the learned Magistrate found that the prosecution had failed to prove the charge against the respondents herein under Section 27(1)(e)(iii) of the Kerala Forest act. 2. The prosecution case in a nutshell was that on July 26, 1993 and 5 days prior thereto, the accused had unlawfully and without any excuse trespassed into Chembikkunnu Kani Settlement situated in Kallar Beat within the Palode Reserve Forest and cut down an anjili tree and attempted to remove the same. The value of the tree was assessed at Rs.1,000/- and the loss sustained by the government was estimated to be Rs.1,500/-. 3. In support of its case the prosecution had examined Pws.1 to 5. Exts.P1 and P1(a) were also marked. The learned Magistrate, after a careful evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence, found that the prosecution had not adduced any evidence to show that the alleged crime was committed within the reserve forest. It was also noticed by the learned Magistrate that there was no satisfactory evidence to show that the tree had been allegedly cut down prior to issuance of the prohibitory order of the Government dated May 19, 1993. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has taken me through the evidence available on record. The depositions of Pws.1 to 5 will Crl.A,922/2001 2 not in any way show that the tree had been cut from the reserved forest or settlement area. No document was produced by the prosecution to show that the alleged place of occurrence was inside the reserved forest. There was also no evidence to show that the accused had cut down the tree in question. What the witnesses had spoken was only that they had found the accused rolling down two pieces of Anjili having a size of 800 cms. X 165 cms. The prosecution alleged that the accused had cut the tree five days prior to the detection of the crime. But no satisfactory evidence was adduced in this regard. 5. It was also noticed by the learned Magistrate that the alleged detection of the crime was admittedly on July 26, 1993. But the matter was reported before the court only on November 1, 1993. The delay in filing the report before the court was not explained by the prosecution at all. 6. It is also pertinent to note that the accused had a case that prior to May 1993 the settlers of the settlement area were permitted to cut down trees from the land in their possession. They had contended that the tree in question was cut prior to issuance of the order of prohibition. Anyhow the evidence on record did not show that the accused had cut the tree from reserved forest area. Further, there was no evidence to show that it had been cut prior to the date of the prohibitory order. In the absence of any evidence to show that the alleged area from where the tree had been allegedly cut was a forest area, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the court below. Crl.A,922/2001 3 7. In this context it may also be noticed that this appeal was filed with a delay of 375 days. It is true that the delay had been condoned by this Court . Though a petition for staying the operation of the judgment was filed by the State, no steps were taken to obtain any orders on the said petition. Therefore the prayer made by the learned Public Prosecutor to modify the order of the court below directing the State to hand over the timber logs to the accused cannot be allowed due to passage of time. Crl. Appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed. A.K. Basheer Judge. an.