IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 12TH AUGUST 2008 / 21ST SRAVANA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1752 of 2004(D) ------------------------------- CRA.200/2001 of II ADDL. SESSIONS COURT, PALAKKAD CC.23/1998 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT-III, PALAKKAD .................... REVN. PETITIONER/3RD APPELLANT/3RD ACCUSED: ------------------ SUNIL KUMAR, WRONGLY SHOWN AS ANIL KUMAR IN CRL.A. 200/01, SON OF KRISHNAN, ITTYARATHU VEETTIL, PATTIMATTAM VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.R.KURUP SRI.C.R.SYAMKUMAR SRI.JOSE KURIAN RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ------------------------ STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER, OLAVAKKODE IN OR 44/96 REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.P.K.RAVIKRISHNAN THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.1752 OF 2004 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of August, 2008 O R D E R On the basis of an occurrence report by the Forest Range Officer, Olavakkode, three persons were prosecuted for offences punishable under Section 27 (1) (d) of the Kerala Forest Act on the allegation that on 29.10.1996, they trespassed into the reserve forest at the location described and were found to be in possession of teak billets illicitly removed from the reserve forest. The court of first instance convicted all the three and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each, along with a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, with a default sentence. The court of session accepted the appeal of accused persons 1 and 2 and acquitted them. The conviction and sentence imposed by the court of first instance on the third accused was confirmed by the court of session. Hence, this revision by him. Crl.RP.1752/04 Page numbers 2. The courts below have concurrently found credibility in the versions of PWs.1 and 2 that they apprehended the third accused (revision petitioner) along with contraband and the vehicle, an autorikshaw. Ext.P5 statement given by the third accused to PW2 was proved by PW2. With the support of that statement, even the court of session had taken the clear view that the identification of the third accused by PWs.1 and 2 cannot be doubted and they had seen him properly. The fact that the scene of occurrence was a reserve forest stood proved by Ext.P8. The legal evidence on record led to the conclusion that the revision petitioner, the third accused, had trespassed into the reserve forest and had removed 10 billets of teak. The court of session, on appreciation of the evidence, also repelled the contention that no eye witness was called for attesting the mahazar. The accused was intercepted at 4 a.m. by the beat team of the forest department. The contention that if the teak billets were placed in the autorikshaw, none could have travelled thereon and the further contention that there is no evidence produced to show that the teak billets recovered from the third accused was Crl.RP.1752/04 Page numbers stocked at the reserve forest were rejected by the courts below. On appreciation of evidence, I do not find that there is any illegality in the conclusion arrived at by the courts below. I do not think the conviction or the sentence imposed warrants interference. In the result, the revision petition fails. The same is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge kkb.13/8.