IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 18TH BHADRA 1931 Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 606 of 2001() ----------------------------- CC.170/1998 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, CHITTUR .................... REVN. PETITIONER(S): COMPLAINANT --------------------- STATE REP. BY FOREST RANGE OFFICER, KOLLENGODE. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI JAYASURYA RESPONDENT(S): ACCUSED --------------- 1. ABUBEKKER, S/O. MUHAMMED HAJI, THULIYATH HOUSE, KARIMPUZHA POST, SREEKRISHNAPURAM, PALAKKAD. 2. DHARVES, S/O.BASHA RAWTHER, OZHALAPATHI VILLAGE, KUPPANDA-KOUNDANNUR. ADV. DR.K.B.MUHAMED KUTTY, SENIOR ADVOCATE, FOR R1&2 THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P.Q. BARKATH ALI, J. -------------------------------------- CRL.R.P. 606 of 2001 -------------------------------------- Dated: SEPTEMBER 9, 2009 ORDER In this revision petition the State challenges the order of discharge passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chittoor, in C.C.No. 170 of 1998 dated December 18, 2000. 2. The case of the prosecution was that on 7.3.1997, 6.25 Kgs. of sandalwood chips and 5.8 Kgs. of sandalwood oil were seized from the sandalwood factory of the accused persons by the Forest Range Officer, Kollengode Range. According to the prosecution, the sandalwood chips were illicitly removed from the reserve forest and that therefore the accused persons have committed an offence punishable under sec.27(1)(d) of the Kerala Forest Act. 3. Before the trial court PW.1 was examined and Ext.P1 mahazar was marked. The trial court found that the prosecution has failed to prove a prima facie case to frame a charge against the accused persons and therefore discharged the accused persons under sec.245(1) of Cr.P.C. The State has now come up in revision. Crl.R.P. 606/2001 - 2- 4. The Public Prosecutor appearing for the State argued that the lower court went wrong in discharging the accused at this stage itself and that the prosecution should be given sufficient opportunity to adduce evidence and to prove their case. This is opposed by the counsel for the revision respondents/accused persons. 6. The only point which arises for consideration is whether the prosecution has proved a prima facie case to frame a charge against the accused persons. 7. The prosecution mainly relied on the presumption envisaged under sec.69 of the Kerala Forest Act which provides that when a person is found to be in possession of forest produce, it has to be presumed that it is the property of the State until the contrary is proved. 8. The Public Prosecutor would argue that in view of the said presumption, as the sandalwood chips and the sandalwood oil were seized from the sandalwood factory of the accused persons, it has to be presumed to be illicitly removed from the reserve forest. I am unable to agree. No document is produced Crl.R.P. 606/2001 - 3- on the side of the prosecution to show that those sandalwood chips and sandalwood oil were illicitly removed from the forest area. Further, the prosecution has not chosen to seize the stock register of the said sandalwood factory to show that the sandalwood chips and sandalwood oil seized are not mentioned in the stock register. Therefore, in my view, the learned Magistrate is perfectly justified in discharging the accused persons. In the result, I find no merit in this revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed. P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE mt/-