IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 29TH MARCH 2011 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 999 of 2011() ------------------------ CC.1061/2010 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-I,CHALAKUDY .................... (OR.NO.23/2009 OF PARIYARAM FOREST RANGE) ...... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED NO.2: -------------------------------------------------- DR. PREMRAJ V.V., AGED 52 YEARS, S/O. V.V.BHARATHAN, VALLOMPARAMBATH PANIKKASSERY HOUSE, LOKAMALLESWARAM VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR. BY ADVS. SRI.K.B.GANGESH, SMT.SMITHA CHATHANARAMBATH. RESPONDENT(S): STATE: --------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA - 682 031 (FOREST RANGE OFFICER, PARIYARAM RANGE, THRISSUR). BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI K.J.MOHAMMED ANZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Crl. M.C. No.999 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 29th day of March, 2011 O R D E R Petitioner is the second accused in O.R. No.23 of 2009 of Pariyaram Forest Range for offences punishable under Section 27 (d)(e) (iii), (iv) & (v) of the Kerala Forest Act. Case is that on 22.07.2009 the first accused allegedly trespassed into the Teak Plantation in Konnakuzhy Reserve, cut and removed a Sandalwood tree and sold the same to the petitioner. It is alleged by the Forest Officials that petitioner purchased sandalwood logs knowing the same to be a forest produce. According to the petitioner he is an Ayurvedic Physician engaged in the manufacture of ayurvedic medicines with licence. It is contended that the only material against petitioner is confession statement of the first accused. Learned counsel contended that even that confession statement does not indicate that the sandalwood logs involved in the case on hand were purchased by the petitioner. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor also. 2. The question whether the statement allegedly made by the first accused to the forest official would amount to a confession so that it is not admissible in evidence in view of Sec.25 CRL.M.C. No.999 of 2011 -: 2 :- of the Evidence Act is a matter which the trial court has to decide. Question whether sandalwood logs in question were sold to the petitioner is also a matter which the trial court has to decide. Having regard to these circumstances I am not inclined to think that this Court should interfere under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Leaving it open to the petitioner to raise all his plea/defence before the trial court this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is closed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv