STATE BY KARNATAKA Vs. MAHAMMAD RAFFIQUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State has preferred this appeal challenging the judgment and order acquitting the respondent for the charge under Sections 86 and 87 of the Karnataka Forest Act r/w. Section 379 IPC on a trial held by the Sessions Judge, Davangere. The facts reveal that on 2.8.2005 PW 1 -Thippeswamy, the PSI was on duty of inspecting the vehicles on the road along with other police officials and while he was at Lingadahalli cross, he found the respondent who was proceeding on a scooter. The PSI requested to stop the vehicle and as the respondent did not stop it, he chased and at that time the respondent said to have left the scooter and tried to run away. He was apprehended and on search of the scooter, he found 36 billets of sandalwood pieces and was in unlawful possession of the same. The billets were weighed. The total weight was 5 Kgs. He seized the scooter and also the billets under the mahazar Ex. P1 and registered a case in Crime No. 115/2005 for the aforesaid offences. He sent the complaint and the FIR to the Magistrate and the sample billets MOs. 2 to 4 (3 billets) were sent for the opinion of PW 6. He recorded the statement of the witnesses, obtained the certificate Ex. P5 from PW 6 and on completion of the investigation filed the charge sheet against the respondent for the said charges. During the trial, the prosecution examined PWs. 1 to 6 and got marked the documents Exs. P1 to 5 and MOs. 1 to 4. Statement of the respondent was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. No defence evidence was led. The trial Court after hearing the counsel for the parties and on appreciation of the material on record, acquitted the respondent for the charges under Sections 86 and 87 of the Karnataka Forest Act and under Section 379 IPC. Aggrieved by the acquittal, the State has filed this appeal.

(2.) I have heard learned High Court Government Pleader. Learned Counsel for the respondent is absent.

(3.) LEARNED High Court Government Pleader would contend that the evidences of PWs. 1 to 5 is sufficient to prove the unlawful possession of sandalwood billets, hence, he contends that the Trial Court committed an error in granting an order of acquittal.