- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4197 CRL.RP No. 100125 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100125 OF 2015 (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. SHRI APPANNA BASAVANNEPPA JANAKATTI AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. KOLAVI VILLAGE, TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI. 2. SHRI BALAPPA YALLAPPA NEGALI AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. KOLAVI VILLAGE, TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI G.B. NAIK AND SMT.P.G. NAIK, ADVOCATES) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA R/BY. SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT.GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W. 401 OF CR.P.C 1973, SEEKING THAT THE ENTIRE RECORDS IN C.C.NO.332/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL JMFC GOKAK AND CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.10/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK AND ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, GOKAK BE KINDLY CALLED FOR EXAMINED. THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 10.03.2015 PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.10/2013 BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK & ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, GOKAK, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 05.01.2013 PASSED IN C.C.NO.332/2004 BY THE PRL. JMFC COURT, GOKAK FOR THE OFFENCES UNDER SECTION 24(G) OF KARNATAKA FOREST ACT, BE V N BADIGER Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Date: 2025.03.10 14:31:37 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4197 CRL.RP No. 100125 of 2015 SET ASIDE AND CONSEQUENTLY THE REVISION PETITIONERS BE ACQUITTED. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) 1. Heard Smt.P.G.Naik learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt.Girija S. Hiremath, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State. 2. Revision petitioners are the accused persons who suffered an order of conviction in C.C.No.332/2004 for the offence punishable under Section 24(g) of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months each and shall pay fine of Rs.2,000/- each. In default they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days. 3. Validity of the conviction order and sentence was questioned by the revision petitioners in Crl.A.No.10/2013. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4197 CRL.RP No. 100125 of 2015 4. Learned judge in the first appellate Court after securing the records and hearing the parties in detail, in the light of the appeal grounds dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of conviction and sentence. 5. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused Nos.1 and 4 are before this Court in this revision petition. 6. Heard Smt.P.G.Naik, learned counsel for revision petitioners, reiterating the grounds urged in the revision petition, vehemently contended that the impugned judgment is incorrect and suffering from legal infirmities and patent factual error inasmuch as there is no material on record to show that the place of the incident was a reserved forest area, which is a sine qua non for proceeding against the accused either for the offence under Section 27 of the Karnataka Forest Act or under Section 24(g) of the Karnataka Forest Act, and sought for allowing the petition. 7. Alternatively, counsel for revision petitioners would submit that in the event this Court upholding the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4197 CRL.RP No. 100125 of 2015 order of conviction, taking note of the age of the revision petitioners and also taking note of the fact that they did not claimed any right title and interest over the disputed land and also taking note of the fact that they didare the first time offenders, imprisonment may be set aside by enhancing the fine amount reasonably. 8. Per contra, Smt. Girija S. Hiremath, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State, would support the impugned judgment. 9. She would further contend that the place of incident is admittedly falling under reserved forest area, as could be seen from materials placed on record and therefore, action attributable to the revision petitioners are clearing the forest land for the purpose of personal gain which would complete the offence punishable under Section 27 of the Karnataka Forest Act and 24(g) of the Karnataka forest Act and which has been rightly appreciated by the learned trial magistrate and learned trial magistrate has acquitted the revision petitioners for - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4197 CRL.RP No. 100125 of 2015 the offences punishable under Sections 24(a), (b), (c),(ii), (e), (g), (gg) and 73(d) of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963, shows that there is sufficient application of mind on the part of the learned trial judge, while passing the impugned order and therefore, sought for dismissal of the revision petition. 10. Further, Smt Girija S. Hiremath would contend that if people like revision petitioners are shown mercy or leniency, similarly placed perpetrators of the crime would get encouraged and indulgence in similar activities in future. As such it would send wrong message to the society and thus sought for the dismissal of the revision petition in toto. 11. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. On such perusal of the materials on record, ROR extract, map and measurement panchanama, placed before the Court vide Exs.P.4, 5 and 7 would make it clear that the place of incident is the reserved forest area. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4197 CRL.RP No. 100125 of 2015 12. If any of the occupants, who are having their lands adjacent to the forest area, there may be scope for encroachment not knowing very well has to be boundary of the reserved forest area. But the case of hand, the revision petitioners did not possess any such land belonging to them, which is adjacent to the reserved forest area. Therefore, the fact remains that accused persons being the persons who wanted to take advantage of the reserved forest area and cleared the forest land for the purpose of personal gain, which would complete the offence punishable under Section 24(g) of the Karnataka Forest Act. Therefore, conviction revision petitioner recorded by the learned trial magistrate and confirmed by the first appellate Court needs no interference in this revision petition. 13. However, with regard to the sentence of imprisonment is concerned, there is sufficient force in the arguments put forth on behalf of the revision petitioners that they are first time offender and poor villagers. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4197 CRL.RP No. 100125 of 2015 14. Therefore, taking note of their age and also taking note of the fact that they are the first time offenders and there is no minimum punishment prescribed for the offence for which the revision petitioners have been convicted, directing the payment of enhanced fine amount of Rs.10,000/- each by the revision petitioners with sentence of imprisonment is set aside. Accordingly the following: ORDER (i) Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part. (ii) While maintaining the conviction of the revision petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 24(g) of the Karnataka Forest Act, the sentence of imprisonment ordered by the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court is set aside by enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.10,000/- for all the aforesaid offences payable by each of the accused on or before 30.03.2025. Failure to make the enhanced payment on or before 30.03.2025 would result in restoration of the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4197 CRL.RP No. 100125 of 2015 jail sentence ordered by the learned Trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court. (iii) Office to return the Trial Court records along with a copy of this order for issuance of modified conviction warrant. SD/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE AC CT:PA LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 28