Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 28742 (KAR)

SRI.MADASHETTY @ MADA v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

CRL.RP/800/2020 · 2025-01-20

H P Sandesh

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:2155 CRL.RP No. 800 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.800 OF 2020 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. MADASHETTY @ MADA, S/O VENKATASHETTY, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT BANNITHALAPURA VILLAGE, GUNDLUPET TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT-571 111. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. P. NATARAJU, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY NANJANAGUD RURAL POLICE STATION, MYSURU DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT MYSURU IN CRL.A.NO.264/2019 DATED 07.09.2020 AND THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRL.CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND JMFC AT NANJANGUD IN C.C.NO.774/2002 DATED 16.08.2019 AND ACQUIT THE PETITIONER BY ALLOWING THIS RP. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:2155 CRL.RP No. 800 of 2020 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent. 2. This revision petition is filed challenging the order of conviction and sentence of the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 87 of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 read with Section 379 of IPC, wherein the Trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioner for the above offence for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further four months simple imprisonment and the same has been challenged before the Appellate Court and the Appellate Court also confirmed the said order. 3. Being aggrieved by the said order, the same is challenged before this Court. 4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court is that the very case of the prosecution before the Trial Court is that this petitioner was apprehended along with 15 kgs. of sandalwood pieces i.e., 81 pieces. On 08.07.2002 on credible information at around 12.30 - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:2155 CRL.RP No. 800 of 2020 p.m. conducted the raid and two persons were coming from Gundlupet in a scooter and arrested both of them in Crime No.185/2002. The investigation was conducted and filed the charge sheet against accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 86 and 87 of the Karnataka Forest Act read with Section 379 of IPC. The prosecution in order to prove the charges leveled against the petitioner herein examined five witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.5 and got marked the documents at Exs.P.1 to and M.O.1 to M.O.4 are identified. The petitioner was subjected to 313 statement and the Trial Court having considered the material on record convicted and sentenced the petitioner to undergo sentence of two years with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo four months simple imprisonment and the same has been confirmed by the Appellate Court. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that both the Courts failed to take note of the material on record and committed an error and seizure was not proved in accordance with law. P.W.1 and P.W.2 have stated that no identification marks and numbers were given to the sandalwood billets in their presence. The learned counsel contend that the Range Forest Officer has not been examined - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:2155 CRL.RP No. 800 of 2020 before the Trial Court and in order to prove their case relied upon Ex.P.4 certificate. The Investigation Officer has not produced the notification issued by the Government to show that the Range Forest Officer has undergone training and notified to exercise the powers as prescribed under Section 62C of the Karnataka Forest Act. There is no compliance of mandatory provisions of law. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of RAGHAVENDRACHARI v. STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in ILR 2010 KAR 3382 and contend that when there is no compliance, the very order of conviction and sentence is not sustainable in the eye of law. Both the Courts failed to take note of Sections 62C and 87 of the Karnataka Forest Act and hence it requires interference of this Court. 6. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent State admits that the Range Forest Officer was not examined before the Trial Court. However, contend that sandalwood pieces 81 in number weighing 15 kgs. were seized at the instance of this petitioner and other accused has not preferred any appeal and only this petitioner has challenged the order. The learned counsel contend that though the Trial Court passed a cryptic order, the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:2155 CRL.RP No. 800 of 2020 Appellate Court in detail discussed the material on record and taking note of the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.5 and Investigating Officer who apprehended the petitioner was also examined before the Trial Court and hence it does not require interference of this Court. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader and also looking into the material on record and also the grounds which have been urged in the revision petition, the points that arise for the consideration of this Court are: (i) Whether the Trial Court committed an error in convicting the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 87 of Karnataka Forest Act read with Section 379 of IPC and whether it requires interference of this Court by exercising the revisional jurisdiction? (ii) What order? 8. Having heard the respective learned counsel for the parties and also considering the material on record, the factual aspects of the case of the prosecution is that on 08.07.2002, PSI Nanjangud Rural Police Station received credible information about transportation of sandalwood billets and accordingly he along with his staff went to Deveerammannahundi Village gate - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:2155 CRL.RP No. 800 of 2020 on Nanjangud-Gundlupet Main Road and at about 12.30 p.m., two persons were coming from Gundlupet in a scooter and when the respondent police stopped them and searched their bag and scooter dickey, they found sandalwood billets and also pieces weighing about 15 kgs. and those two persons were not possessing any licence or permit to transport the same. The police arrested both of them and conducted the mahazar and seized the same and sent the same to the Forest Department and after the investigation filed the charge sheet. 9. The main contention of the petitioner before this Court is that the very reasoning given by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court is erroneous and failed to take note of the fact that the very seizure has not been proved and contend that P.W.1 and P.W.2 have stated that no identification marks and numbers were given to the sandalwood billets in their presence. That learned counsel contend that even not obtained any certificate and though relied upon Ex.P.4, the Range Forest Officer has not been examined. Section 62C of the Karnataka Forest Act is clear that the Range Forest Officer must have the training and there is no such mandatory compliance also. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Raghavendrachari (supra), wherein this Court - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:2155 CRL.RP No. 800 of 2020 taken note of Section 62C as well as Section 87 of the Karnataka Forest Act, wherein challenge was made with regard to conviction under Section 87 of the Act and also taken note of the certificate issued by the Range Forest Officer i.e., P.W.2 and certificate Ex.P.4 and comes to the conclusion that there is no evidence to the effect that P.W.2 has undergone training as prescribed under Section 62C of the Act or that he was authorized by the Government to issue such certificate. Hence, no reliance can be placed on Ex.P.4 to hold that the material seized is sandalwood. Therefore, on this ground alone the petitioner is entitled to an order of acquittal. 10. The learned counsel referring this judgment brought to the notice of this Court that the Trial Court examined five witnesses i.e., P.W.1 to P.W.4 are the witnesses of raiding parties and P.W.5 is the Investigating Officer, who seized the sandalwood pieces, but not examined the Range Forest Officer with regard to the issuance of the Range Forest Officer report which is marked as Ex.P.4. It has to be noted that the present case is worst than the other reported case, which was referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner, wherein P.W.2 has been examined. But in the case on hand, the Range Forest Officer has not been examined who gave the report in terms of - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:2155 CRL.RP No. 800 of 2020 Ex.P.4 and only relied upon the evidence of the raiding parties and no material is produced before the Court that it is a forest produce i.e., particularly the seized articles are sandalwood pieces and no evidence before the Court that the same is material object of sandalwood pieces. No doubt, in case of sandalwood billets is concerned, particular numbers are to be given, but in the case on hand, they are sandalwood pieces and not billets and in order to prove the fact that Ex.P.4 is the certificate, there is no any compliance of Section 62C of the Act. The provisions of Section 62C of the Act is very clear that certificate of Forest Officer to be an evidence in order to comes to the conclusion that there is a material that seized articles is a forest produce. Having read Section 62C of the Act, it is clear that any document purporting to be a certificate under the hand of a Forest Officer not below the rank of a Range Forest Officer who has undergone training in the examination of forest produce and who is so authorised by the State Government in this behalf in respect of forest produce, submitted to him for examination and report, may be used as evidence of the facts stated in such certificate in any proceedings under this Act; but the Court may, if it things fit, and shall on the application of the prosecution or - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:2155 CRL.RP No. 800 of 2020 the accused person summon and examine any such Forest Officer as to the subject matter of his certificate. 11. Having considered the provisions of Section 62C of the Act, first of all the Range Forest Officer has not been examined before the Trial Court in order to prove the document of Ex.P.4. The certificate is issued in terms of Ex.P.4 and the author of the document has not been examined. The provisions of Section 62C of the Act is very clear that he must have undergone training in examination of forest produce and no such report is also placed before the Court and also no notification is issued before the Trial Court. When such being the case, the Trial Court ought to have considered the said fact and also Section 62C of the Act and when there is no evidence of compliance of Section 62C of the Act, the Trial Court ought not to have relied upon the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.5. P.W.5 is the Investigation Officer who seized the articles, but he is not a competent person to speak with regard to the material object that the same is forest produce. Apart from that, though the document of Ex.P.4 is marked through the prosecution witnesses and expert has not been examined and the author of the document also has not been examined and there is no material evidence before the Court that the seized article is - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:2155 CRL.RP No. 800 of 2020 forest produce and the same belongs to sandalwood pieces and unless that material is placed before the Court, the Trial Court ought not to have relied upon the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.5. 12. The learned High Court Government Pleader contend that the Appellate Court discussed in length the material on record and reasoned order has been passed. The said contention cannot be accepted for the reason that mandatory provisions of Section 62C of the Act has not been complied while considering the material on record and finding of the Appellate Court also not touched upon Section 62C of the Act and nothing is discussed in the judgment of the Appellate Court with regard to the very provision of Section 62C of the Act and unless mandatory provisions is complied, conviction and sentence is not sustainable in the eye of law. There is a force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law. The very contention of the learned High Court Government Pleader that a detailed order has been passed by the Appellate Court cannot be accepted unless legal evidence is placed on record. The conviction and sentence is not sustainable in the eye of law and it requires interference. Hence, I answer the point for consideration in the affirmative in coming to the conclusion that - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:2155 CRL.RP No. 800 of 2020 the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court committed an error in not considering the legal evidence available on record. Hence, it requires interference of this Court. 13. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The criminal revision petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court is dismissed and the order passed by the First Appellate Court confirming the order of the Trial Court is set aside. Consequently, the petitioner is acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 87 of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 read with Section 379 of IPC. If any bond is executed by the petitioner, the same is cancelled and if any fine amount is deposited, the same is ordered to be refunded in favour of the petitioner, on proper identification. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 54