A BHANUPRAKASH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioners are convicted for the offence punishable u/s. 87 of the Karnataka Forest Act (for short The Act ). Challenging the judgment of conviction and the order sentencing the accused for rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and also imposing fine of Rs. 5,000/-, both the accused are before this Court in this revision petition.

(2.) IT was alleged against the accused that on 15. 06. 1993, accused Nos. 1 and 2 cut and uprooted sandal wood tree in the Government land and made 71 sandal wood billets worth about Rs. 14,000/-, thus committing an offence u/s. 86 of the Forest Act. It was further alleged that they were found transporting the said 71 sandal wood billets in a Maruthi Van near Saragodu without valid license and committed an offence u/s 87 of the Karnataka Forest Act. Both the courts have held that the offence alleged against the accused u/s 86 was not proved whereas the offence alleged u/s 87 of the Act stood proved.

(3.) AMONG several points urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the important legal point raised is regarding violation of the mandatory requirement contained u/s 62 (3) of the Act which allegedly vitiates the conviction recorded against the accused. It is his submission that as required u/s 62 (3) of the Act, the Officer seizing the sandal wood is required to report the seizure and forward the seized material to the designated authorised authority under the provisions contained u/s 71a of the Act. Neither in the evidence nor in the materials produced before the Court, there is anything to suggest that this procedure is complied with, is the submission. In this regard, learned counsel has placed reliance on a decision rendered by this Court in the case of Ningappa Bhimappa Gundammanavar and another Vs. State of Mysore (ILR 1973 (Vol. XXIII) Kar 897 ). It is further contended by the learned counsel that the seizure is also not proved in accordance with law as none of the panch witnesses to the seizure are examined. He submits that seizure is also not attested by independent panchas but has been attested by the officials of the Forest Department. His next contention is that there is delay in submitting the FIR before the Magistrate. He has lastly contended that admittedly, the investigation is conducted by two officials out of whom only PW-2 who conducted the major part of the investigation is examined but the higher Officer to whom the investigation was later on entrusted has not been examined.