Syed Syfulla S. Khadarvali, vs Forest Range Officer, ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 1893 AP

             THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURESH REDDY

              CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1505 of 2006

ORDER:

Questioning the conviction and sentence passed by the learned

Judicial I Class Magistrate, Penukonda, Ananthapur District, in

C.C.No.362 of 2001, dated 28.02.2005, which was confirmed by the

learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hindupur in Crl.Appeal No.12 of

2005, dated 31.08.2006, the revision petitioner/sole accused filed the

present criminal revision case.

2. Case of the prosecution in nutshell :

On 15.06.1999, on credible information, P.W.1-Forest Section

Officer along with P.W.2-Forest Beat Officer proceeded to Gorantla Bus

Stop and found the accused in possession of 2 gunny bags. When

P.Ws.1 & 2 enquired the accused about the gunny bags, the accused did

not give proper reply. As the accused did not give proper reply, P.Ws.1 &

2 opened the bags and found snake skins and sheep skins. As the

accused, without possessing any valid license, transporting the said

skins, P.W.1 produced the accused before the Forest Range Officer,

Bukkapatnam. Later, in the presence of mediators i.e., P.Ws.3 to 5,

police separated the snake skins and sheep skins and seized 694 snake

skins of three varieties and 15 sheep skins under the cover of Ex.P6-

Mediator report. On questioning about the possession of the said skins,

the accused confessed that he purchased the snake skins from Yanadees

around Gorantla and selling the same by transporting to Madras.

Thereafter, the accused was remanded to judicial custody. After

completion of investigation, police filed charge sheet for the offence under

Section 44 (1) (a) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (for short 'Act')

punishable under Section 51(1) of the Act. The case was taken on file as

C.C.No.362 of 2001 on the file of the Court of the Judicial I Class

Magistrate, Penukonda, Ananthapur District.

3. In support of its case, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 6 and

marked Exs.P1 to P7 apart from exhibiting M.Os.1 & 2. The accused was

examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., and he denied the incriminating

material. No oral or documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the

defence.

4. After considering the entire evidence on record, the learned

Magistrate convicted the accused for the offence under Section 44 (1) (a)

of the Act and punished under Section 51(1) of the Act and sentenced

him to suffer Rigorous imprisonment for a period of one (01) year and

also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default, to suffer Simple imprisonment

for a period of two (02) months.

5. Questioning the said conviction and sentence, the

petitioner/accused preferred Criminal Appeal No.12 of 2005 on the file of

the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Hindupur. After considering the

material on record, the appellate Court dismissed the appeal, vide

Judgment dated 31.08.2006 confirming the conviction and sentence

passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner

filed the present revision case.

6. Heard Smt. Nimmagadda Revathi, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Sri Soora Venkata Sainath, learned Special Assistant

Public Prosecutor.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously argued that the

confession made by the accused before the Forest Officials cannot be

taken into consideration and except the confession of the accused, there

is no other material on record to connect the petitioner with the alleged

offence. Finally, she requested this Court to take a lenient view with

regard to the sentence alone as the incident took place in the year 1999

and the petitioner has already been in judicial custody for more than 2

months.

8. This Court perused the entire material on record. As seen from the

evidence of the prosecution witnesses, P.Ws.1 & 2 caught hold the

petitioner red-handedly and seized 694 snake skins of three varieties and

15 sheep skins from the possession of the petitioner under the cover of

Ex.P6-Mediator report, which are marked as M.Os.1 & 2. As such, the

factum of seizure from the possession of the petitioner cannot be

doubted. Furthermore, the evidence of P.Ws. 3 to 5, who acted as

mediators to the said seizure also corroborated the case of prosecution.

Therefore, the learned Magistrate after taking into consideration all these

aspects, convicted the petitioner. Considering the nature of offence, this

Court is not inclined to interfere with the conviction passed by both the

Courts below. However, taking into consideration the submission of

learned counsel for the petitioner and as the petitioner has already

undergone two months remand period, this court is inclined to take a

lenient view with regard to the sentence of imprisonment alone.

9. In that view of the matter, the present Criminal Revision Case is

dismissed confirming the conviction recorded by both the Courts below.

However, the sentence of imprisonment alone is reduced from one (01)

year to period already undergone. Fine amount imposed by both the

Courts below is hereby enhanced from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.10,000/-. The

petitioner is directed to pay the enhanced fine amount before the trial

Court.

As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall

stand closed.

_______________________ K. SURESH REDDY, J

20th day of April,2022.

RPD.

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURESH REDDY

CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.1505 of 2006

Dated : 20-04-2022

RPD