IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER FRIDAY, THE 28TH MARCH 2008 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 892 of 2000 ------------------------------------------- CRA.2/1997 of ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, THODUPUZHA CC.223/1993 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, ADIMALI .................... REVN. PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/ACCUSED: ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. OUSEPH S/O THOMAS VARKEY, VIRUTHAMATHU VEEDU THALAKANDOM BHAGOM, MANKULAM VILLAGE DEVIKULAM TALUK 2. THOMAS S/O THOMAS VARKEY OF -DO- -DO- 3. JOSE S/O KUNJAUSEPH KUZHAKKANATTU VEEDU'THTHALAKANDAM BHAGAM -DO- VILLAE, -DO- TALUK 4. THAMPI S/O CHANDRAN, MANIYALAPARAMBIL VEEDU THALAKANDOM BHAGOM, MANKULAM VILLAGE DEVIKULAM BY ADV. SRI.N.A.MURALEEDHARAN RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE: ------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. DEPUTY RANGER FOREST STATION MACHIPLAVU 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJETH ALI. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P.No.892 OF 2000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 28th day of March 2008 ORDER Petitioners faced trial for the offence punishable under Section 27 (1) (e) (iii) and (iv) of the Kerala Forest Act on the charge that they had trespassed into the Malayattoore Reserve Forest and cut and removed one 'Akil tree' from Narakakkuzhi region inside the forest, on December 16, 1992 at about 4.00 p.m. The trial court found the petitioners guilty under Section 27 (i) (e) (iii) and they were accordingly convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 18 months each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, the petitioners were directed to undergo simple imprisonment for two months each. The sessions court had confirmed the above order of conviction and sentence in appeal. Hence, this revision petition. 2. In support of the prosecution case, PWs 1 to 3 had deposed before the court that they had seen the accused pushing Crl.R.P.No.892 OF 2000 :: 2 :: or rolling up a log of 'akil tree' on to a platform inside the forest. As soon as the accused saw PWs1 to 3, who were respectively working as Forester and Guards in Machiplavu Forest Station during the relevant time, they had fled. But PWs 1 to 3 had chased the accused. Though accused 1 to 3 were caught red handed, accused No.4 escaped. It had come out in evidence that PW1 to 3 had identified the tree as 'Akil' and they had also noticed the stump of the tree from which it was cut down. 3. PW1 stated that Ext.P1 mahazar was prepared at the spot. M.O.1, axe, was also recovered from the scene. Accused Nos.1 to 3 who were arrested, were produced before the Range Office. Ext.P2, notification was also marked through this witness. He also identified Ext.P3 Form-I report. The loss that was sustained by the Government was assessed at Rs.1,000/-. 4. As mentioned earlier, the evidence of PW2 and 3 also did corroborate the evidence of PW1 on all material aspects. The courts below had considered the oral and documentary evidence on record elaborately and meticulously. Though learned counsel for the petitioners has contended for the position that there was Crl.R.P.No.892 OF 2000 :: 3 :: some inconsistency in the matter of the age of the cut tree (PW1 stated that it was one day old whereas PW2 stated that it might have been three days old), I do not find any merit or significance in the above contention in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. The courts below, in my view, were justified in holding the petitioners guilty of the offences alleged against them. But when it comes to the question of sentence, I am satisfied that some leniency is warranted. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioners had been involved in any other crime particularly in relation to any forest offence. The alleged offence was committed about 16 years ago. The petitioners who were in their early 20s at the time of commission of the alleged offence have been undoubtedly going through the agony of the prosecution for the last more than 1½ decades. More importantly, even according to the prosecution the State had suffered a loss of only Rs.1,000/-. Only one 'Akil' tree was allegedly cut by the petitioners. The cut logs of tree had been recovered from the scene of occurrence itself. Crl.R.P.No.892 OF 2000 :: 4 :: 5. In any view of the matter, I am satisfied that substantive sentence of imprisonment need not be imposed on the petitioners. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances, I am satisfied that petitioners can be sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.6,000/- each. 6. Therefore, the substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioners is set aside. Petitioners shall pay a fine of Rs.6,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 27(1)(e)(iii) of the Act. Revision petition is disposed of in the above terms. (A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE) jes Crl.R.P.No.892 OF 2000 :: 5 :: A.K.BASHEER, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P.No.892 OF 2000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ORDER Dated 28th March 2008