ABDUL RAZAK Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN unsuccessful accused has filed this revision petition u/ss. 397 and 401 of Cr. P. C. against the order dated 16-1-2002 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge in Crl. A. No. 76/2001, whereby the learned sessions Judge confirmed the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 10-9-2001 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC, N. R. Pura in C. C. No. 68/2001, convicting him for the offence punishable u/s. 87 of the Karnataka Forest Act r/w. Section 379 of I. P. C. directing him to undergo S. I. for 3 years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, In default of payment of fine of Rs. 10,000/-, he shall further undergo S. I. for 6 months. Therefore, feeling aggrieved by the judgment and orders by the aforesaid Courts, he has come up with this revision petition mainly on the ground that there are no independent witnesses regarding the alleged seizure mahazar drawn by the Forest Officials at about 8. 15 p. m. under the torch-light and vehicle-light by the department Chief at a distance of 1 or 1? k. m. from the village limits. The evidence of prosecution witnesses are full of contradictions and omissions. Even though the trial court as well as the learned Sessions Judge wrongly believed and accepted their evidence and convicted him, which require interference at the hands of this Court.

(2.) THE brief facts of this case are that; on 25-12-2000, the Range Forest Officer, chikkagrahara received a credible information about transporting of sandalwood. Therefore, himself along with his staff kept a watch on Ravoor to N. R. Pura road of singalale Village. At about 7. 30 p. m. , an auto-rikshaw bearing No. MEL 8601 came from Revoor side. After seeing that auto-rikshaw coming, the raiding party made an attempt to stop the auto-rikshaw. But on seeing the Forest Officers in uniform, the revision petitioner and another inmate of the said autorikshaw stopped it at a distance of 5 mts. and then started running away. The Forest Officials apprehended those persons and succeeded in their attempt in catching this revision petitioner. Further, other accused escaped. It is the further case of the respondent-complainant that on search, the forest officers found sandal wood, stumps and chips contained in gunny bags and plastic bags. On enquiry the revision petitioner did not produce any licence or permit to transport the sandal wood stumps, billets and chips. Therefore, transport of sandalwood without possessing valid licence or permit is an offence under the provisions of Sections 86 and 87 of the Forest Act. Therefore, they were seized under a mahazar-Ex. P. 1. Thereafter, registered a case and submitted F. I. R. After investigation, the accused No. 2, who was present on the day, could not be traced. Therefore, the charge-sheet has been filed against the revision petitioner for the offence u/ss. 62, 86 and 87 and 71 (A) of the Karnataka Forest Act r/w. Rules 144, 165 of the Karnataka forest Rules. So, after receipt of charge-sheet, the trial Court furnished the copies to the revision petitioner-accused No. 1. After hearing the learned counsel for the revision petitioner-accused and the A. P. P. , charge for the offence u/ss. 86 and 87 of the Karnataka Forest Act and u/s. 379 of I. P. C. were framed, read-over and explained to him. Since he pleaded not guilty, claimed to be tried. Therefore, the respondent prosecution examined in all six witnesses, got marked documents at Exs. P. 1 to 6 with m. Os. 1-54 and closed its case. Thereafter, this revision petitioner was examined u/s. 313, Cr. P. C. The defence of this revision petitioner is of total denial. After hearing arguments of both sides, after considering the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the trial Court convicted this revision petitioner for the offence u/s. 87 of the karnataka Forest Act r/w. Section 379 of i. P. C. but acquitted him for the offence u/s. 86 of the Karnataka Forest Act. Feeling aggrieved of the said order of conviction and sentence, he preferred an appeal Crl. No. 76/2001 before the Prl. Sessions Judge at Chickmagalur. Since this Crl. A. No. 76/2001 was assigned to the Addl. Sessions Judge at Chikmagalur, that Addl. Sessions Judge after reappraisal of the evidence and after considering the arguments advanced by both sides, dismissed the appeal. Hence, this revision petition.

(3.) HEARD the arguments of the Advocate for the revision petitioner, that of the learned h. C. G. P. for respondent-State and perused the records.