K T ABU Vs. FOREST RANGE OFFICER, MEPPADI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioners herein are the accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C. No.585/1996 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kalpetta. They challenge the conviction and sentence against them under Sections 27(1)(e)(iii) and (iv) of the Kerala Forest Act (for short, 'the Act'). They along with four others faced prosecution in the court below on the allegation that on 9.2.1994, they trespassed into the Government Reserved Forest within the Meppady Forest Range, and cut and removed some rosewood trees. The offence was detected by a team of forest guards, and two of the accused were arrested on the spot. The others were later arraigned on the basis of the statements given by the co-accused during investigation. Though the detection was made on 9.2.1994, the Form-I report was sent to court by the Forest Range Officer only on 15.2.1994. The Form-I report does not mention the name of any of the accused in Column No.3. Any way, after investigation, the Forest Range Officer submitted final report against six accused. All the six accused appeared before the learned Magistrate and pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against them.

(2.) The prosecution examined seven witnesses and proved Exts.P1 to P5 documents in the trial court. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., all the accused denied the incriminating circumstances. They did not adduce any evidence in defence.

(3.) On an appreciation of the evidence, the trial court found all the accused guilty. On conviction, they were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year each, and to pay a fine of Rs. 5, 000/- each. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 9.1.2004, the accused approached the Court of Session, Wayanad with Crl.A. No.19/2004. In appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc)-II, Kalpetta found the accused Nos.3 to 6 not guilty of any of the offences, and accordingly, they were acquitted in appeal. But, the conviction against the accused Nos.1 and 2 was confirmed in appeal. The sentence was also maintained in appeal by the appellate court.