SAKTHIVEL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner stood charged for the offence punishable under Sections 21(d), (e), (f) and 36(A) and (E) of Tamil Nadu Forest Act (Act V of 1982) and after trial before the learned Special Judicial Magistrate (Sandal Wood Offences), Thirupathur @ Vellore District, he was convicted him for the offences punishable under Section 36(A) and (E) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs.7,500/ -, failing which to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. The petitioner was acquitted of the offence under Section 21(d)(e) and (f) of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act. Such conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner was confirmed by the Appellate Court in the appeal filed by him. As against the aforesaid decisions of the Court below, the present Criminal Revision Case is filed.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution as could be seen from the records made available is that on the basis of a tip off received by the officials of the Forest, they have kept a vigil near Sornakulathur Forest Beat on 25.09.1998. At about 5.15 p.m. the officials have spotted the petitioner gaining illegal and unauthorised entry in to the Sornakulathur Forest Beat with a headload of about 18 kgs of sandal wood. On being questioned, the petitioner did not satisfactorily account for the sandal wood logs. The petitioner was not issued with any permission or licence to cut and carry away the sandal wood. The officials of the respondent have estimated the value of the seized sandal wood at Rs.8,500/ -. They have also recorded the confession of the petitioner and on the basis of such confession, the sandalwood were seized by the officials of the respondent. Immediately thereafter, the respondent has prepared form 'H' and also form '95' in the presence of witnesses. The seized sandalwood logs were produced before the Authorised Officer, who has also acknowledged it on the same day. Thereafter, the Authorised Officer has also verified and signed the form 'H' and '95' produced before him. On the basis of the above, a case in S.T.O.R. No. 17 of 1998 came to be registered against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 36(A) and (E) of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act. The officials, who have witnessed the occurrence were examined and their statement were recorded on the same day. Upon registration of the case, the petitioner was produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate along with the form 'H' and form '95' and he was remanded to judicial custody on the same day.

(3.) IN support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of this Court in the case of (Seerangan Vs Forest Range Officer, Salem) : 2005 Criminal Law Journal 987 and also the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court rendered in (Ashok @ Dangra Jaiswal Vs State of Madhya Pradesh) : (2011) 5 Supreme Court Cases 123 to drive home the point that non -production of the seized goods before the court below is fatal to the case of the prosecution.