IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2010 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1932 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 847 of 2003 -------------------------------------------- CRA.575/2002 of IV ADDL.SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM CC.501/1999 of JFCM-II, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... REVN. PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED: JOSE, S/O.DEVASSY, MANIKKATHIL, MANIKNTANCHAL, KUTTAMPUZHA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEW RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: STATE OF KERALA, FOREST RANGE OFFICER, KUTTAMPUZHA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.I.B.PRAMOD THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CRL.M.P.NO.3116/2003 IN CRRP 847/2003 DISMISSED 26.5.2010 SD/-M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.847 of 2003 -------------------------- ORDER Petitioner, the first accused in C.C.No. 501/1999 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court-II, Muvattupuzha, filed this revision challenging the concurrent conviction and sentence for the offence under Sections 27(1)(e)(i) and 27(1)(e)(iv) of Kerala Forest Act. Prosecution case is that on 26.9.1995, PW1, the Forest Guard, along with PW3, while on guard duty, reached the reserve forest area to the east of Parisakuthu River and found the petitioner, along with the second accused, cutting reeds from the reserve forest and setting fire with the intention of cultivating the forest land by trespass. Finding PWs 1 and 3, the accused ran away and they could not be apprehended. The allegation is that petitioner, along with the second accused, trespassed into the reserve forest in their attempt to cultivate a portion thereof, after clearing the CRRP 847/03 2 forest to an extent of 1½ acres. Petitioner pleaded not guilty. 2. Prosecution examined three witnesses and marked Exhibits P1 to P3. Petitioner did not adduce any evidence. 3. Learned Magistrate, on the evidence, found the petitioner guilty, after splitting up the case as against the absconding second accused. Petitioner challenged the conviction and sentence before Sessions Court, Ernakulam in Crl.A.No. 575/2002. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, on re- appreciation of evidence, confirmed the conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeal. It is challenged in this revision. 4. Argument of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that courts below did not properly appreciate the evidence and there is no evidence to prove that the property, from where the reeds were cut, forms part of the reserve forest. It is argued that based on Exhibit P1 notification CRRP 847/03 3 it cannot be found that it is a reserve forest. Learned counsel also argued that though no evidence was adduced to prove that it is his private property, no opportunity was granted and therefore, an opportunity is to be granted. 5. When PWs 1 and 3 were examined, there was no case for the petitioner that the area about 1½ acres, from where the forest was cleared, was not part of the reserve forest or that it is his private property. In the absence of a case that the property forms part of the private property of the petitioner, I find no justification to grant an opportunity to adduce evidence as sought for. Moreover, it is seen that the case was heard and disposed only about one year after he was questioned under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, it is not a case where petitioner did not get opportunity to adduce evidence. CRRP 847/03 4 6. Evidence of PWs 1 and 3 establish that when they were on guard duty and reached the reserve forest, petitioner, along with the other accused, was found clearing the forest by cutting the reeds for the purpose of cultivating that land. Evidence of PWs 1 and 3 is that petitioner is known to them. That evidence was not challenged. Therefore, identity cannot be disputed. In fact, the capacity of PWs 1 and 3 to identify the petitioner was not challenged in cross-examination. On going through the evidence and the findings of the learned Magistrate and learned Additional Sessions Judge, I find that evidence was properly appreciated. Evidence conclusively establish that petitioner committed trespass into the forest land and cleared it by cutting the reeds and setting fire to it for the purpose of cultivating that land. In such circumstances, conviction of the petitioner for the offences under Sections 27(1)(e)(i) and 27(1)(e) (iv) of Kerala Forest Act is perfectly legal and CRRP 847/03 5 valid. 7. Then the only question is regarding the sentence. Learned Magistrate awarded the minimum sentence provided for the offences. It is confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge also. I find no reason to interfere with the sentence. Revision is, therefore, dismissed. 26th May, 2010 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv CRRP 847/03 6 M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.R.P.No.847 of 2003 -------------------------- ORDER 26th May, 2010