RAMACHANDRAN Vs. STATE REPRESENTED BY FOREST RANGE OFFICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioners herein are the accused in ST No.479/1997 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kalpetta. They challenge the conviction and sentence against them under Section 5 (1)of the Kerala Preservation of Tress Act (for short "the KPT Act"). The revision petitioners seek orders purely on legal grounds, and so I feel it not necessary to go to the factual aspects. On the allegation that the accused cut some standing trees at their estate, the Forest Range Officer, Meppadi brought the said prosecution by way of a Form-II report under the Kerala Forest Act. This report was preceded by a Form-I report sent by the Forest Range Officer to court. On the Form-II report, the learned Magistrate took cognizance and issued summons to the accused. They appeared before the learned Magistrate and pleaded not guilty when the substance of the accusation was read over and explained to them. The prosecution examined three witnesses and proved Exts.P1 to P3 documents in the trial court. The accused denied the incriminating circumstances when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They did not adduce any evidence in defence.

(2.) On an appreciation of the evidence, the trial court found the accused guilty. On conviction, they were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three 2500/- months each and to pay a fine of each. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 6.1.2004, the accused approached the Court of Session, Wayanad with Crl.A No.38/2005. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction, but reduced the fine amount to 2000/- each. The substantive sentence was maintained by the appellate court.

(3.) The revision petitioners assail the conviction and sentence on the legal ground that the prosecution is not properly and legally brought as required under the provisions of the KPT Act. The scheme of the provisions of the KPT Act is that when an offence punishable under the Act is detected by a Forest Officer, he will have to report the fact to the authorised officer under sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the Act. When such a report is received by the authorised officer , he will have to send a report in turn to the Judicial First Class Magistrate having jurisdiction over the area in which the seizure is made. Section 15 provides that on receipt of a report from the authorised officer containing the details of the crime committed under the KPT Act, the Magistrate shall take such measures as may be necessary for the trial of the accused and also for the disposal of the property involved. Section 18 of the KPT Act further provides that no prosecution shall be instituted against any person without the sanction of the authorised officer. The definite case of the revision petitioners is that in this case there is no report as prescribed under sub- section (2) of Section 13 of KPT Act or under clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 13 of the KPT Act and there is also no sanction as required under Section 18 of the Act.