P MANI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition against conviction and sentence. The case of the prosecution was as follows :-

(2.) The main ground of revision is that the prosecution has not proved that the accused was in possession of the sandalwood logs seized and that neither the trial Court nor the appellate Court had given a clear finding on that point. The evidence of P.W. 3, the Forest Officer in this connection is to the effect that he learnt from enquiries that one Dr. Rajan was the owner of the Subha Kalyana Mandapam, that one Krishnamurthy was the lessee of the same and that the accused was the person in charge. In this case it is clear that the sandalwood logs were seized from a portion of the Subha Kalyana Mandapam. The person who is deemed to be normally in possession of the building is the lessee. Anybody can be in possession of any portion of the building only as a sub-lessee or through any other special arrangement. In order to implicate the accused, evidence will have to be adduced to show that the accused was in effective possession of the portion of the building from whether the sandalwood logs were seized. P.W. 3. the Forest Officer, the complainant in this case, has failed to adduce any evidence in this regard. His cursory statement that he learnt from enquiry that the accused was in charge of the building is utterly inadequate.

(3.) The other way in which the accused was attempted to be shown to be in possession of the building was the way in which he was apprehended and the way in which the sandalwood logs were recovered. In this connection, P.W. 2 the Sub-Inspector of Police would depose that on receiving reliable information, that sandalwood was stocked in Subha Kalyana Mandapam, he went to the said building with his police party, that upon seeing the party, the accused attempted to slip away and was apprehended. The evidence of P.W. 2 in this respect is not very clear. As per his evidence, the accused was not known to him and he did not also know that the accused was the person who was involved in the case. Therefore, the only circumstances which enabled him to identify the accused is that he slipped away. This circumstance should have been described with more details by P.W. 2 in order to show how he was able to understand that he could be the person involved in the matter. He does not say how many other persons were there at that time, how the accused slipped away and at what distance he was apprehended.