CHANDRAPPA Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above criminal revision petition is preferred by the petitioner who is the first accused in C.C.NO.411/2000.

(2.) THE facts in brief are that on 31.12.1999 at about 8.00 a.m., CWs 1 to 4 were on forest beat duty in the Kukwada Ubrani Manna Jungli, near Handiguddi lake pathway. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 without possessing any valid permit or licence were found carrying bete log worth Rs. 750/ -. The same was seized and the accused were booked for offences under Sections 24, 80 and 104(a)(d) of the Karnataka Forest Act (for short hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The said log was seized under mahazar. Forest Offence Case No. 237/99 -2000 dt.31.12.1999 was registered and a certificate -Ex. P5 came to be issued by the Competent Officer i.e. the Range Forest Officer Channagiri certifying that the material seized from the accused is bete mara, a forest produce, and that it values Rs. 750/ -. The Trial Court and the Appellate Court have heavily relied on Ex. P5 - certificate issued by the Competent Officer to convict and uphold the order of conviction.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner would submit that the prosecution has miserably failed to demonstrate the allegation that the petitioner was in possession of a forest produce. Apart from making a bald allegation that the petitioner was possessing the log, the prosecution has not let in any evidence to show that either the said piece of wood was removed from the forest area or that the accused were aware that it is a forest produce and the removal of which is prohibited under the Act. He would also point out the fact that the accused is an illiterate and a coolie doing agricultural work. The petitioner's counsel would also point out that the whole conviction is based on interested witnesses i.e. CWs 2 to 4, who are all employees of the Forest Department, who have merely repeated the testimony of each other.