IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2009 / 13TH SRAVANA 1931 CRL.REV.PET.NO. 1933 OF 2009() ---------------------------------------------- CRA.51/2005 OF I ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM CC.177/2001 OF JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II( FOREST OFFENCES),PUNALUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): APPELLANT/ACCUSED ---------------------------------------------------------------- MANOHARAN, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O. KARUPPAYYA PILLAI, K.J.P.COLONY, THENMALA, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.DILEEP P.PILLAI RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT ---------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHRI C.S. HRITHWIK THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = CRL. R.P. NO.1933 of 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 4th day of August, 2009 O R D E R -------------- Petitioner along with 5 others faced trial in the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Punalur in C.C. No.177 of 2001 for offence punishable under Section 27(1)(e)(iv) and (v) of the Kerala Forest Act for the alleged trespass into the reserve forest near Thenmala dam site within Thenmala Forest range. It is alleged that accused were engaged in illicit collecting of sand from that portion of the reserve in the forest. According to the prosecution petitioner was arrested by the forest guards at spot while others escaped. Learned magistrate acquitted accused No.6 while others including petitioner were convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment. They preferred appeal, Crl. Appeal No.51 of 2005 in the court of learned Sessions Judge, Kollam. Learned Additional Sessions Judge confirmed conviction and sentence of petitioner while accused Nos.2 to 5 were acquitted. Conviction and sentence of petitioner are under challenge in this revision. It is contended that there is no evidence to show that petitioner trespassed into the reserve forest. 2. As things now stand charge, conviction and sentence of CRL. R.P. No.1933 of 2009 -: 2 :- petitioner is only for the offence of alleged trespass into the reserve forest. The point for consideration is whether petitioner is proved to have trespassed into the reserve forest. P.Ws.2, 3 and 5, guards stated about the incident and that they saw petitioner and others engaged in collecting sand from the river. It is also their version that petitioner was arrested at the spot. P.W.4 is the guard. He stated that Range Officer and party seized the country boat with sand collected in it. Exhibit P6 is the mahazar prepared on 25.5.1999. P.W.1 is the Range Officer who conducted investigation. 3. Exhibit P6 is the mahazar allegedly prepared by the forest guard on 25.5.2006. Exhibit P8 is the mahazar dated 26.5.1999. Exhibit P5 is the Notification signed by the Chief conservator of Forest to prove that the place of occurrence is reserve forest. But there is no mention in Exts.P6 or P8 that the alleged place of occurrence is reserve forest. Witnesses also admit that it is not stated in Exts.P6 and P8 that the place of occurrence is within the reserve forest. What remained is only the Notification (Ext.P5). There, apart from giving boundaries of the reserve forest, it is not clear that the place of occurrence is part of reserve forest. If that be so, merely based on the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2, 3 and 5 it cannot be said that the alleged place CRL. R.P. No.1933 of 2009 -: 3 :- of occurrence is within the reserve forest. As such conviction and sentence of petitioner cannot be sustained. Resultantly, revision succeeds. Conviction and sentence imposed on petitioner are set aside and he is is acquitted of the charges levelled against him. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv