K MAHAMAD ALI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused in Criminal Case No. 2928 of 1983 on the file of the additional Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Madikeri have preferred this Revision against the judgement of that Court and also the confirming judegment of the Sessions Judge, Madikeri concurrently finding them guilty of an offence punishable under Section 87 of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 (the Act) and sentencing each of them to suffer R.I. for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default to undergo R.I. for a further period of one year. The petitioners have preferred this Revision from jail, where they are undergoing the sentence imposedupon them.

(2.) The prosecution case was that on 29.8.1983, Head Constable-Chengappa (P.W.1) attached to the Kushalnagar Police Station was on Patrol duty. He had noticed these two accused, sitting on the road-side in the Bychanalli area of Kushalnagar near a cycle shop. They were thus sitting on a bag containing something and which had been tied. It is said that when P.W.1 and his staff were moving in that direction, having seen them, the accused had started running away. On suspicion, they chased them, detained them, brought them near the gunny bag Ergot it opened & found as many as 18 billets of sandalwood inside the bag. A mahazar was drawn in the presence of the panchas and the accused werechargesheeted, after investigating into the case. The evidence discloses that the 18 billets had been subjected to an examination by an expert who has issued a certificate as per Ex. P. 3 to the effect that the seized billets were sandalwood billets. The case of the prosecution is that while attaching these 18 billets, the I.O. had specifically marked each billet from a paint not easily erasable. It is also their case that, with the permission of the Court retaining one billet, they had disposed of the remaining ones. These facts have been spoken to not only P.W. 1 the Head Constable referred to above, but also the panch associated with the mahazar and other witnesses. On an assessment of these facts, the two courts below have, as stated above, concurrently found these accused guilty.

(3.) I have perused the Revision petition containing the grounds urged by these petitioners assailing these findings. I have also perused the records having obtained the same from the trial Court. I find no good grounds to interfere with these concurrent findings. On behalf of these petitioners, their Counsel had pleaded before the learned Sessions Judge, Madikeri to take a lenient view in the matter of sentence. Section 104 (f) of the Act. prohibits Courts from extending the beneficial provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act or applying Section 360 Cr. P.C. to cases like this, and, besides this. Section 87 of the Act provides for a maximum punishment of upto seven years and fine which may extend to Rs. 25,000/- and provides for minimum sentence in the case of a first offence which shall not be less than 3 years, and fine not less than Rs. 10,000/- Taking note of these provisions, the Courts below have awarded the minimum sentence prescribed in law. Neither, Courts subordinate to this Court nor this Court can go below the minimum sentence prescribed in the statute concerned. In the State of Andhra Pradesh v S. Ft. Ray ad ha ma ppa (A. I. R. 1982 S. C. 1492) the Supreme Court observes that where a statute prescribes a minimum sentence for an offence and does not provide for any exceptions and does", not vests the Court with any discretion to award a sentence below the prescribed minimum under any Circumstances, the High Court cannot in its Revisional Jurisdiction reduce the sentence of imprisonment to less than the minimum prescribed.