C G UNNIKRISHNAN KARTHA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is accused in offence No.3 of 2007 of Mayannur Forest Range Office registered for offence punishable under Section 27(a) of the Kerala Forest Act (for short, "the Act") read with Rules 3 and 7 of the Kerala Forest (Prohibition of Felling of Trees Standing on Land Temporarily or Permanently Assigned) Rules, 1995 (for short, "the Rules").

(2.) As per Annexure-I, Form-I report petitioner has felled 40 teak trees from the land assigned as per land assignment patta. Place of occurrence described in Annexure-I is within Parvathy Estate. Petitioner contends that he purchased 6.08 and quarter acres in the survey numbers referred to in the petition as per Annexures-II to V, sale deeds at a time when it was barren land and later, he has planted teak trees in the said property. To show the said property is neither reserve forest nor patta land, he has produced Annexures-VI and VII, receipt for payment of basic tax and a location sketch prepared by the Village Officer. He has also a contention that on the strength of the said documents he has availed bank loan and to prove that, Annexures-VIII and IX are produced. Petitioner enquired with the Village Officer under the Right to Information Act as to the nature of property and obtained Annexure-XIII, letter. Learned counsel has contended that no offence under Section 27(a) of the Act is made out since the said offence, going by the said provision can apply only in relation to reserve forest and, any act prohibited by Section 7 of the Act. Learned counsel contends that Section 7 of the Act would apply only in respect of property regarding which notifications are issued under Sections 4 and 19 of the Act and in the meantime, alleged acts are done in the property. No such situation arise in this case since Annexure-XIII would show that properties in question are included neither in reserve forest nor puramboke land. It is contended by learned counsel that there is nothing on record to show that at the time petitioner purchased the properties as per Annexures-II to V, sale deeds or when the Government issued patta, teak trees in question were standing in the property which alone could be the subject matter of the clause in the patta issued to the assignee. Learned counsel has invited my attention to Annexure- X, patta issued in Form No.6 in relation to the land covered by one of the sale deeds among Annexures-II to V and contended that the schedule does not mention any tree.

(3.) Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the case is now at the stage of investigation and that final report is not so far filed. According to the learned Public Prosecutor interference under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, "the Code") at this stage is not warranted.