VINOD, S/O. RAGHAVAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners herein are the two among the three accused (viz., A -2 & A -3) in Calendar Case, C.C.No.351/1998 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court -II (Forest Offences), Punalur, who are seeking to challenge the legality, propriety and correctness of the impugned conviction and sentence imposed on them as per the judgment dated 27.5.2002 of that learned Magistrate in that Calendar Case as affirmed by the impugned appellate judgment dated 4.2.2006 of the appellate Sessions Court concerned (Court of III Additional Sessions Court, Kollam) in Crl.A.No.110/2002. The above said Calendar Case arose out of the complaint filed by the Forest Range Officer, Kulathupuzha, against the three accused therein for the alleged offences punishable under Secs.27(1)(e)(iv) and (v) of the Forest Act.

(2.) The gist of the prosecution case is that the three accused had trespassed into the western bank of the Kallada river flowing through the Mylammoodu area of Kulathupuzha Reserve Forest in Kulathupuzha Forest Range and unlawfully collected sand from the river and tried to remove the same from the forest area, which resulted in the Government sustaining a loss of Rs.1,000/ - and that thereby the accused have committed the aforesaid offences under the Kerala Forest Act. The trial court as per the impugned judgment dated 27.5.2002 in Calendar Case, C.C.No.351/1998, had convicted all the three accused for the aforesaid offences and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for one year each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/ - each and in default thereof, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Sec.27(1)(e)(iv) of the Forest Act and they are also convicted and sentenced to go simple imprisonment for one year under Sec.27(1)(e)(v) of the Forest Act and the said sentences shall run concurrently, etc. The appellate court dismissed the Crl.A.No.110/2002 as per the impugned judgment dated 4.2.2006, thereby confirming the impugned conviction and sentence imposed on all the three accused. Only accused 2 & 3 have preferred the present Criminal Revision Petition to challenge the above said conviction and sentence rendered against them for the alleged offences.

(3.) Heard Sri.C.Rajendran and Sri.C.P.Anilraj, learned Advocates appearing for the revision petitioners (accused 2 & 3) and the learned Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent -State of Kerala.