S. RAMALINGAM Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU BY ASSISTANT CONSENATOR OF FORESTS, FOREST PROTECTION SQUAD, VELLORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this application is the second accused in C.C.256/97 on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate, Tirupattur. The Respondent is the complainant in that proceedings. Besides the petitioner there is one another accused who is arrayed as the first accused.

(2.) I heard Mr.V. Gopinath, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in this quashing petition. According to the learned senior counsel, there is not even an iota of material against the petitioner placed by the respondent before the lower court in the above referred to C.C. and therefore taking cognizance of the offence as against the petitioner, has to be necessarily quashed. The learned senior counsel would further contend that though as many as eight witnesses, have been cited as witnesses in the complaint, yet none of them, as disclosed in the complaint itself, is going to speak directly against the petitioner before the trial court regarding his involvement in the commission of the offence. The learned senior counsel further added that the first accused is stated to have given a statement to the official witnesses implicating the present petitioner herein and though the said statement is admissible, yet in the absence of any other material available on record, the said statement of the first accused, being in the nature of the statement of the co accused ,cannot be treated as substantive evidence against the petitioner. In other words, according to the learned senior counsel, if there is any other material on record against the present petitioner herein, only then the statement of the co -accused can be taken as lending assurance to the other material on record. The submission of the learned senior counsel is that, taking cognizance of the offence against the petitioner herein is without any legal substantive evidence on record.

(3.) IN the light of the arguments advanced by the learned senior counsel and the learned Government Advocate for the respondent, I perused the complaint filed before the lower court. The sum and substance of the allegations in the complaint is that on 6.1.97 at 10.30 pm. a vehicle bearing No.TN -04 -13 -0860 was intercepted and checked. The first accused by name C.Gnanasekaran was in command of the vehicle. There was none else. As many as 57 pieces of sandalwood blocks were found in the lorry at the time of check and they were accordingly seized. The first accused, namely, the driver of the vehicle was also arrested. P.W.2, the Forest Ranger examined the first accused and at that time the first accused gave a voluntary statement which was reduced into writing. In that statement, the first accused is stated to have disclosed that only on the instructions of the owner of the vehicle namely, the second accused (the petitioner before this court) that he transported the sandalwood pieces. It also appears that the first accused had retracted the statement later on. The complaint itself discloses as to what the eight witnesses cited in the complaint are going to depose in the court. None of the witnesses are disclosed to speak anything about the involvement of the second accused in the commission of the offence. They are to be examined only to speak about the stopping of the vehicle, examination of the driver of the vehicle (first accused); recording of the statement; seizure of the vehicle as well as the goods and the follow -up action. Therefore the question that falls for consideration at this stage is whether there are any materials, other than the statement of the first accused implicating the second accused, which prima facie disclose the involvement of the second accused (the petitioner before tins court) in the commission of the crime. I find none except the statement of the co -accused already referred to above. The point that falls for decision is whether taking cognizance of the offence against the second accused on this sole materials referred to above can be legally sustained. The offences complained of in this case are under Sections 21(d)(e) read with Section 35, 36 -A, 36 -E of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act.