IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 9TH DECEMBER 2008 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1004 of 2000() ------------------------------ CRA.129/1997 of SESSIONS COURT, THODUPUZHA CC.21/1995 of MUNSIFF-MAGISTRATE COURT, DEVICOLAM .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANTS/ACCUSED: --------------------- 1. PAULOSE S/O.KURUVILA MUNDANCHALIL HOUSE, PIOUSNAGAR BHAGAM, KEEZHANTHOOR VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM TALUK. 2. SUBRAMANIYAN S/O.KANNAN KOTTAPALAMKUDIYIL, -DO- -DO- 3. VARGHESE S/O.ANTONY PUTHUSSERI HOUSE, -DO- -DO- 4. BABU S/O.KANNAN KOTTAPALAMKUDIYIL , -DO- -DO-= 5. CHAPLI S/O.VELAYAN KANNAKKAYAMKUDIYIL, -DO- -DO- 6. VIJAYAN S/O.CHADAYAN, KOTTAPPALLAMKUDIYIL, -DO- -DO- 7. MURALIDHARAN S/O.RAMANKARTHA KOTTAPPALAMKUDIYIL, -DO- BY ADV. SRI.KENNETH GEORGE SRI.BABU SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. M.K.PUSHPALATHA THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 9/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.1004 of 2000 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of December, 2008. ORDER Revision petitioners faced trial in the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Devikulam in C.C.No.21 of 1995 for offences punishable under Sections 27(1)(e)(iii) and (iv) of the Kerala Forest Act (for short, 'the Act') for allegedly trespassing into the reserved forest and cutting down sandal wood tree on 17.1.1995. They were convicted on both counts and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each and payment of fine Rs.1,000/- each. Revision petitioners preferred appeal to the Sessions Court as Crl.Appeal No.129 of 1997. Learned Sessions Judge set aside the conviction and sentence under Section 27(1)(e)(iii) of the Act but the conviction and sentence under Section 27(1)(e)(iv) of the Act were confirmed. Hence this revision. 2. This revision came up for hearing on 2.12.2008. There was no representation for the revision petitioners. Hence the revision petition is posted for disposal today. Revision petitioners and counsel remained absent today as well. I heard the Public Prosecutor. 3. Points for consideration are - I. Whether conviction of the revision petitioners for offence punishable under Section 27(1)(e)(iv) of the Act is legal and proper? Crl.R.P.No.1004/2000 2 II. Whether sentence is excessive? 4. Perused records. 5. Point No.I. Case is that on 17.1.1995, revision petitioners trespassed into Karayoor No.2 sandal wood reserve and attempted to remove three live sandal wood trees. PWs 1 and 2, forest guards stated in their evidence that on 17.1.1995 while they were on beat duty along Karayoor sandal wood reserve, they noticed the revision petitioners carrying timber logs on their head, they were questioned and they disclosed their name and address. On examination the timber logs were found to be sandal wood logs. Revision petitioners stated that they had felled three sandal wood trees from the reserve forest and were removing it. They pointed out the stumps of three sandal wood trees and the weapon (MO1). Revision petitioners were taken to custody and the logs and weapon were seized as per Ext.P1. According to PWs 1 and 2, revision petitioners were produced before the Range Officer on the same day along with the timber logs and MO1. Ext.P2 is the notification of Karayoor sandal wood reserve, Block No.2 signed by the Chief Conservator of Forest and containing the seal of that office. Ext.P3 is the Form I report. Ext.P1 contains the endorsement by the Range Officer who claimed to have visited the place of occurrence. Courts below accepted the evidence of PWs 1 and 2. Learned Sessions Judge however found that there is no sufficient evidence to show that Crl.R.P.No.1004/2000 3 revision petitioner had felled the sandal wood trees but they were found to have trespassed into the forest and therefore, confirmed their conviction and sentence under Section 27(1)(e)(iv) of the Act. It is contended in the revision petition that the courts below went wrong in believing the evidence of PWs 1 and 2. The further contentions are that the officer who is said to have detected the offence is not examined, revision petitioners are not properly identified and that at any rate, Ext.P2 is not a certified copy of the notification and hence, cannot be accepted. 6. The case of the revision petitioner when questioned under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure is that they were taken to custody from the sugar cane garden of one Ganesh. So far as the contention that evidence of PWs 1 and 2 is not reliable, I went through the evidence and found that nothing is brought to disbelieve it. I do not find any reason to disbelieve the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 that the revision petitioners were found in the sandal wood reserve. Revision petitioners' contention is that they were falsely implicated in the case by PWs 1 and 2. There is no reason to think that revision petitioners were taken to custody from the sugar cane garden and falsely implicated in the case. It is to be born in mind that revision petitioners were produced before the learned magistrate with remand application on 17.1.1995 itself when revision petitioners had no such case. Ext.P3, Form I report and Ext.P1, the mahazar for seizure were also produced before the magistrate concerned on 17.1.1995 itself. Crl.R.P.No.1004/2000 4 7. So far as the contention that revision petitioners are not properly identified is concerned, it is in evidence that they were arrested by the guards who detected the offence. They were produced before the learned magistrate on the same day. Therefore, question of any dispute on identity does not arise. Moreover, PWs 1 and 2 identified revision petitioners in the course of trial and that identification was not challenged also. 8. It is true that Ext.P1, mahazar was prepared by guard, Majeed V. Mohammed. But he was not examined. That however is of no consequence since Ext.P1 is signed by PWs 1 and 2 also who were with Majeed V.Mohammed at the time of detection of offence and evidence is given by PWs 1 and 2. 9. So far as the contention that Ext.P2 is not a certified copy of the notification is concerned, I find from Ext.P2 that it is signed by the Chief Conservator of Forest and bears the seal of that office and that fact is not disputed. 10. I have gone through the evidence and find no reason to interfere with the conviction of the revision petitioners under Section 27(1)(e)(iv) of the Act. Crl.R.P.No.1004/2000 5 11. Point No.II. So far the sentence awarded to the revision petitioners is concerned, considering the nature of offence, I find no reason to interfere with the sentence. Resultantly, this revision petition fails. It is dismissed. Bail bonds are cancelled. Crl.M.P.No.5383 of 2000 will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. cks Crl.R.P.No.1004/2000 6 Thomas P.Joseph, J. Crl.R.P.No.1004 of 2000 ORDER 9th December, 2008