RATHINAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal revision case is directed against the judgment dated 3.6.1997 made in C.A.No.167 of 1995 by the Court of I Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem, thereby confirming the judgment dated 7.9.1995 made in C.C.No.1034 of 1994 by the Special Judicial Magistrate, (Sandalwood Offences), Salem, convicting the revision petitioner for the offences held proved against him under Sec.21(d), (e), (f) of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882 read with Rule 3 of the Tamil Nadu Sandalwood Transit Rules and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000 in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further term of three months.

(2.) THE charge as framed against the petitioner/ accused in the case of the prosecution registered by the respondent/Forest Range Officer, Vazhapadi, as per his O.R.No.26 of 1994 is that on 16.2.1994 at 8 p.m., the revision petitioner, with intent to smuggle the sandalwood, trespassed into Kaliakoil, Kudhimaduvu Beat Reserve Forest, in an illegal manner, collected and heaped in a bush, 70 sandalwood logs weighing 500 kgs., and 12 bundles of sandalwood chips, all worth Rs.1,00,000 (Rupees one lakh only) and thus kept them ready for being smuggled when he was caught red-handed by the respondent and the case was registered for offences punishable under Secs.21(d), (e), (f) and 35 and 36(a) and (e) of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882.

(3.) IN reply the learned Government Advocate (on the criminal side) besides submitting the written arguments in a nutshell, would also argue that the non-production of the torch light used by the forest officials in the present case will not vitiate the prosecution case, since the accused was apprehended on the spot. He would cite a judgment in B.Subba Rao v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. , 1998 S.C.C. (Crl.) 171 wherein it is generally held that the non-seizure of the material object in no way affected the case of the prosecution. The relevant portion in para.11 of the above judgment is as follows: