IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH AUGUST 2009 / 21ST SRAVANA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 162 of 2001 --------------------------------------------- CRA.247/1996 of SESSIONS COURT, THODUPUZHA CC.231/1994 of JUDL. MAGI. OF FIRST CLASS-I (FOREST OFFENCES), THODUPUZHA .................... PETITIONER/APPELLANT NO.1/ACCUSED NO.1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- SANTHOSH S/O GOPI KOOTTAMTHADATHIL KOTTAKAVALABHAGAM UDUMBANNOOR VILLAGE THODUPUZHA TALUK BY ADV. SRI.N.A.MURALEEDHARAN RESPONDENTS/ COMPLAINANT & STATE ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. FOREST RANGE OFFICER THODUPUZHA 2. STATE OF KERALA REP BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JIKKAN JACOB THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/08/2009 , THE COURT ON 12/08/2009 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P.No.162 OF 2001 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 12th day of August 2008 ORDER Petitioner was tried along with another before the trial court for the offence punishable under Section 27 (1) (e) (iii) and (iv) of the Kerala Forest Act 1961 on the charge that they had trespassed into the teak forest bearing No.1942 of Veloor Teak Beat in Thodupuzha forest range and cut down a teak tree. The two accused were allegedly caught red handed with one timber log each in their possession by PW1 and 2 on March 9, 1993 inside the reserve forest mentioned above. 2. The trial court found the two accused guilty and convicted and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for one year each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months under Section 27(1)(e)(iii). But no separate sentence was imposed for the offence under Section 27(1)(e)(iv). 3. In appeal, the Sessions Court set aside the conviction under Section 27(i) (e)(iii) of the Act and confirmed the conviction and sentence under the other count. Both the accused were directed to suffer simple imprisonment for one year each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each with a default sentence of imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 27(e)(iv) of the Act. The above order of conviction and sentence is under challenge in this revision petition preferred by accused No.1. It Crl.R.P.No.162 OF 2001 :: 2 :: appears that accused No.2 has not challenged his order of conviction and sentence. 4. As indicated above, the case against the petitioner and the other accused was that they had trespassed into Teak Plantation No.1942 in Thodupuzha reserve forest on March 9, 1993 and cut down a teak tree. PW1, in his evidence, deposed that during the relevant period he was working as a forest watcher in Veloor Teak Plantation within the Thodupuzha forest range. On March 9, 1993 while he was on beat duty along with PW2, he found the two accused carrying a log of teak wood each on their head. On questioning the two accused, they admitted that they had cut down a teak tree from inside the teak plantation. They pointed out the stump of the tree about 80ms away. According to PW1, the two logs were taken into custody. The value of the logs was assessed at Rs.350/- and the total loss sustained by the Government was estimated at Rs.600/-. Ext.P1 mahazar for seizure of the two timber logs having a length of 130 x 90 cm and 130 x 84 cms was prepared. He further stated that the tree was cut from inside the reserve forest covered under Ext.P2 notification. Form I report was prepared by the Range officer which was marked as Ext.P3. 5. PW2 who was also allegedly doing beat duty along with PW1 corroborated the version given by PW1. PW3 who was working as forester in Valayar section stated that he had verified Ext.P1 mahazar and certified the same to be correct. Crl.R.P.No.162 OF 2001 :: 3 :: 6. As mentioned earlier, the trial court found the two accused guilty under both counts, namely, for trespass into the reserve forest and also for cutting down the teak tree. However, the appellate court found that in the absence of any satisfactory or corroborative evidence to show that it was the two accused who had cut down the teak tree, it would not be proper or legal to hold them guilty under Section 27(1)(e)(iii) of the Act. But as regards the alleged trespass into the reserve forest, the appellate court found that the prosecution had established the charge against the two accused. 7. The short question that arises for consideration is whether the said charge under Section 27(1)(e)(iv) can be sustained against the petitioner on the basis of the evidence available on record. 8. Ext.P2 is stated to be a copy of the composite and erratum notification issued by the Government of Travancore. The notification is seen to have been issued on June 24, 1902. Section 18 of the Regulation (ii) of 1068 declared that the tract specified in the “subjoint schedule shall be deemed to be a reserve forest”. The name and number of the reserve is indicated as reserve no.8, Thodupuzha. The four boundaries are also indicated in the notification. The erratum notification which is seen incorporated in Ext.P2 was issued on June 19, 1927. Significantly, there is no evidence to show that No.1942 teak plantation is comprised in the above reserve forest or that it would come within the boundaries indicated in Ext.P2 notification. Neither PW1 the watcher nor PW3 the forester, has Crl.R.P.No.162 OF 2001 :: 4 :: bothered to give any details of the 1942 teak plantation and as to in which part of the forest reserve the teak plantation in question is situated. 9. Having carefully considered the evidence of the three witnesses and also having perused the notification in question, I am not at all satisfied that the charge against the petitioner under Section 27(1)(e)(iv) can be sustained. It has to be remembered that the case against the petitioner was instituted in the year 1993. Eventhough a request is made by the learned Government Pleader to give an opportunity to the prosecution to adduce further evidence in this regard, I am not satisfied that the said request is liable to be allowed because of the long passage of time. 10. In any view of the matter, I am of the view that the conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner for the alleged trespass into the reserve forest cannot be sustained in the absence of any satisfactory or cogent evidence. 11. Therefore, the order of conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner is liable to be set aside. I do so. Petitioner is found not guilty and acquitted of the charge levelled against him. Revision petition is allowed. (A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE) jes Crl.R.P.No.162 OF 2001 :: 5 :: A.K.BASHEER, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.R.P.No.162 OF 2001 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ORDER Dated 12th August 2008