IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 3RD OCTOBER 2008 / 11TH ASWINA 1930 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 972 of 2001(B) ------------------------------ CRA NO.171/1998 OF SESSIONS JUDGE, THODUPUZHA CC NO.565/1995 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE I, THODUPUZHA REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/ACCUSED: --------------------- 1. RAJAN, S/O.AYYAPPAN, KARIMALAKUNNEL HOUSE, KANJIKUZHY VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK. 2. MOHANAN, S/O.KUNJUKOCHU, THENICKAKUDIYIL HOUSE, KANJIKUZHY VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.T.V.PRABHAKARAN (PETITIONER 1) RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: --------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, (O.R.NO.55/1995 OF THE FOREST RANGE OFFICE, THODUPUZHA) BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. PUSHPALATHA M.K. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.R.P. No.972 of 2001 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of October, 2008. ORDER Revision petitioners faced trial for the offences punishable under Sections 27(1)(e)(iii) and (iv) of Kerala Forest Act (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’) for allegedly trespassing into the reserve forest and cutting and removing a tree. Learned Magistrate found revision petitioners guilty, convicted and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment. In appeal, learned Sessions Judge found that conviction and sentence under Section 27(1)(e)(iii) of the Act are not sustainable and revision petitioners were acquitted of that charge. Conviction and sentence under Section 27(1)(e)(iv) of the Act were confirmed. Hence this revision. 2. Heard. 3. Learned counsel for revision petitioners submitted that Section 27 (1)(e)(iv) of the Act has no application to the facts of the case since the said provision applied only to trespass with cattle but there is no such case for the prosecution as against revision petitioners. Further argument is that evidence of PWs 1 to 3 or any of the document produced by the prosecution would not show that revision petitioners were found in any part of reserve forest. 4. So far as the incident is concerned PWs 1 and 2, Guards have given evidence. They have stated that while they were on beat duty along the Crl.R.P.No.972/2001 2 reserve forest on 17.5.1995, they found revision petitioners carrying timber logs. PW1 prepared Ext.P1, mahazar. PW3, Forester verified the place of occurrence on 28.5.1995 with Ext.P1 and found the same to be correct. Ext.P1 (a) is the endorsement. Courts below found that evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is acceptable. I have gone through the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 and found no reason to interfere with concurrent findings of fact entered by the courts below regarding acceptability of evidence of PWs 1 to 3. 5. The argument now advanced is that Section 27(1)(e)(iv) of the Act does not relate to trespass by persons but only to cattle trespass or trespass with cattle. Section 27(1)(e)(iv) of the Act states that – “Any person who…………….. (iv) trespasses or pastures cattle or permits or causes cattle to trespass…….. “ shall be punished in the manner stated therein. It is difficult to understand that Section 27(1)(e)(iv) of the Act relates only to cattle trespass or trespass with cattle. On the other hand, the Section makes it clear that any person who trespasses, along with other things, is liable for prosecution. It is also to be born in mind that there is no separate provision contained in Section 27(1) whereby trespass pure and simple, not accompanied by cattle trespass is made punishable. It is difficult to understand that simple trespass into reserve forest, not accompanied by any other offence is left out of the purview of that Section. Crl.R.P.No.972/2001 3 6. So far as the second limb of argument is concerned, evidence of PWs 1 and 2 supported by Ext.P1 mahazar is that PWs 1 and 2 were on beat duty through reserve forest when they had to confront the revision petitioners who were carrying timber logs. In Ext.P1 it is specifically stated that place of occurrence as the reserve forest. This is further clear from the endorsement given by the Forestor in Ext.P1 Further, witnesses also stated distance from place of occurrence to the boundary of reserve forest. As such, contention that there is no evidence to show that revision petitioners were seen inside the reserve forest cannot stand. On going through the evidence and judgments of courts below, I did not find any reason to interfere with the conviction for the offence punishable under Section 27(1)(e)(iv) of the Act. Sentence awarded to revision petitioners is in accordance with the statutory provision and therefore, required no interference. Resultantly, Revision Petition fails. It is dismissed. Crl.M.P.No.4629 of 2001 shall stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. cks Crl.R.P.No.972/2001 4 Thomas P.Joseph, J. Crl.R.P.No.972 of 2001 ORDER 3rd October, 2008