KUNHALI Vs. THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Accused nos. 1, 3 and 5, who were convicted by the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Thamarassery, for offences punishable under sections 27(1)(e)(iii) and (iv) of Kerala Forest Act, are the revision petitioners. The learned Magistrate sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. . 2,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months each for the offence under section 27(1)(e)(iii). They were further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay Rs. . 2,000/- each as fine for the offence under section 27(1)(e)(iv) of Kerala Forest Act. The conviction was confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, but the substantive sentence was reduced to rigorous imprisonment for one year. The revision petitioners contend that the Courts below failed to note that the prosecution has failed to prove that any tree was cut or removed from any reserved forest or vested forest, since no notification was produced by the prosecution to prove those aspects. The courts below also failed to note that there is no legal evidence to hold that the revision petitioners were the persons engaged in the removal of the cut logs. The further fact that there is no acceptable evidence to show that timber logs seized by the forest officials were the timber logs cut from the rose wood trees and irul tree situated in a forest area, was also not properly considered by the courts below, submits the learned counsel.At the time of seizure of the timber logs also the revision petitioners were not present and so the conviction and sentence passed against them are liable to be set aside, the petitioners contend.

(2.) The learned Special Government Pleader for Forest would submit that each and every aspect was considered by the learned Magistrate so meticulously that the contention raised by the petitioners is bereft of any merit. Since that finding was confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge after further scrutiny, this Court cannot, sitting in revision, upset that concurrent finding.

(3.) The first point that has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that no notification was produced to show that the property from where the rosewood tress and irul tree were cut and removed was a reserved forest. The consistent case of the prosecution is that the said property was part of vested forest comprised in VFC item No. 133 of Peedikappara section in Thamarassery Forest Range. Exhibit P1 Mahazar proves that aspect. There is also evidence to show that the said forest is situated about 200 mtrs away from the orphanage building/ "Yatheemkhana".