Karnataka High Court
Syed vs State By on 5 November, 2024
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:44461
CRL.RP No. 480 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 480 OF 2017
Between:
1. Syed, S/o Abubakkar
Aged about 34 years,
R/at Kundur, Halasoor Post,
Lallavalli Post, Tarikere Tq.
2. Srinivasa, S/o Kannappa
Aged about 37 years,
R/at Kundur, Lakkavalli Hobli,
Tarikere Taluk.
3. Ravi @ Raviraj,
S/o Nagappa Naika,
Digitally signed
Aged about 32 years,
by VEERENDRA R/at Kadkare, Kesave Post,
KUMAR K M Koppa Taluk.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 4. Umesh, S/o Seshaiah
Aged about 37 years,
R/at Keregadde, Seethur Village,
N.R.Pura Taluk,
Chikkamagaluru District.
...Petitioners
(By Sri Balaraj K.N., Advocate)
And:
State by Koppa Police
Chikkamagaluru,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:44461
CRL.RP No. 480 of 2017
Represented by Public Prosecutor
...Respondent
(By Smt. Waheeda M.M., HCGP)
This Crl.RP is filed u/s.397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C praying to set
aside the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the
learned Hon'ble Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Koppa in
C.C.No.161/2011 dated 27.03.2014 and the judgment and
conviction and sentence against the accused in confirmed dated
25.02.2017 passed by the learned Principal District and
Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru in Crl.A.No.57/2014 and set
the petitioner into liberty by acquitting the accused by allowing
this Crl.RP.
This Crl.RP, coming on for hearing, this day, order was
made therein as under:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
ORAL ORDER
Heard the arguments of both sides.
2. Revision petition is filed by the accused
challenging the order of conviction passed in
C.C.No.161/2011 confirmed in Crl.A.No.57/2014 for the
offences punishable under the provisions of Sections 51
and 39(d) of the Wildlife Protection Act.
3. The facts in a nutshell for disposal of the revision
petition are as under:
NC: 2024:KHC:44461
A report came to be lodged with the Koppa Police
contending that on 5.12.2010 at about 5.00 a.m. in room
No.102 at JMJ Lodge at Koppa Town, revision petitioners
were in possession of elephant tusk without any licence
and the same was kept for the purpose of illegal sale. On
enquiry, accused no.2 to 5 revealed that they brought the
elephant tusk from the custody of accused no.1 in an auto
rickshaw bearing No.KA 18 4914 and forest squad seized
the elephant tusk and arrested accused no.2 to 5 in the
spot. Based on the same, Koppa Police registered the case
and investigated the matter and charge sheet came to be
filed for the offences punishable under Sections 9, 39, 40,
44, 49(B)(C), 50, 51 of the Wildlife Protection Act r/w
Section 379 IPC.
4. Learned Trial Magistrate took cognizance of the
aforesaid offences and secured the presence of the
accused persons and framed charge. Accused persons
pleaded not guilty and therefore trial was held.
NC: 2024:KHC:44461
5. In order to substantiate the case of the
prosecution, eight witnesses were examined on behalf of
the prosecution as PW 1 to 8 and seven documentary
evidence were placed on record by the prosecution,
marked and exhibited as Ex.P.1 to 7 comprising of the
complaint, spot mahazar, phographs, FIR, the report,
seized elephant tusk, gunny bag and four mobile
telephones were also marked as material objects on behalf
of the prosecution as M.Os.1 to 6.
6. Detailed cross examination of prosecution
witnesses did not yield any positive material so as to
disbelieve the case of the prosecution. Admittedly there
was no explanation offered by the accused no. 2 to 5 for
possessing the elephant tusk in their custody when the
raid took place in Room No.102 at JMJ Lodge at Koppa
Town.
7. Thereafter the learned Trial Magistrate recorded
the accused statement as is contemplated under section
313 Cr.P.C. Accused persons have denied all the
NC: 2024:KHC:44461
incriminating materials and did not offer any explanation
whatsoever with regard to the incident by filing written
statement as is contemplated under Section 313 (4)
Cr.P.C. nor placed any defence evidence.
8. Thereafter the learned Trial Magistrate heard the
parties in detail and convicted the accused for the offences
punishable under Section 39(d) and Section 51 of the
Wildlife Protection Act and sentenced as under:
"ORDER
The accused No.2 to 5 shall undergo S.I.
for a period of one year and shall pay a fine of
Rs.2,000/- each for the offence punishable
under Section 51 of W.L.P.Act. In default of
payment of fine, the accused persons shall
undergo S.I. for a period of one month.
The accused persons can entitle the
benefit of set off sentence if they are in J.C.
during the crime stage or trial.
The property seized under the Act is the
property of Government as per section 39(D) of
the Wild Life Protection Act. Therefore, the
NC: 2024:KHC:44461
property seized in this case is confiscated to
the State.
The elephant tusk seized in this case is
already handed over to the R.F.O., Koppa.
Auto rickshaw and 4 mobiles seized in this
case are not claimed by any persons, therefore,
they are confiscated to the State after
completion of appeal period.
Gunny bag seized in this case is
worthless, hence office is directed to destroy
the same after completion of appeal period.
Copy of the judgment furnish to the
accused persons by free of cost."
9. Being aggrieved by the same, accused no. 2 to 5
preferred an appeal before the District Court in
Crl.A.No.57/2014.
10. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court after
securing the records from the Trial Magistrate heard the
parties in detail, re-appreciated the material evidence
placed on record in the light of grounds urged on behalf of
NC: 2024:KHC:44461
the appellants/accused and dismissed the appeal filed by
the accused and upheld the order of conviction and
sentence passed by the Trial Magistrate.
11. Being further aggrieved by the same, the
accused persons are before this Court in this revision
petition.
12. Sri. Balaraj, learned counsel for the revision
petitioners reiterating the grounds that in the revision
petition vehemently contended that both the courts have
grossly erred in acquitting the accused no.2 to 5 resulting
in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the
revision petition.
13. Alternatively Sri. Balaraj also contended that in
the event of this court upholding the conviction, since the
accused persons are not possessing any criminal
antecedents, the custody period already undergone by
them may be treated as period of imprisonment and by
enhancing the fine amount reasonably.
NC: 2024:KHC:44461
14. Per Contra, Smt. Waheeda, learned High Court
Government Pleader, supports the impugned orders. She
also submits that if the revision petitioners are allowed to
go scot-free, then it would encourage the similarly placed
miscreants in committing such offence in the fond hope of
getting lenient view from this court and sought for
dismissal of the revision petition in toto.
15. Having heard the parties in detail this court
perused the material on record meticulously. On such
perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that
none of the prosecution witnesses nurtured any previous
enmity so as to falsely implicate the accused persons in
the case on hand.
16. Admittedly no explanation whatsoever is
forthcoming for possession of elephant tusk by the
accused no.2 to 5 when the raid took place in Room
No.102 of JMJ Lodge, Koppa Town. Very possession of the
elephant tusk by the accused itself would be sufficient
enough to conclude the offence under Section 39(d) of the
NC: 2024:KHC:44461
Wildlife Protection Act which is punishable under Section
51 of the Wildlife Protection Act.
17. Therefore, conviction order recorded by the Trial
Magistrate and confirmed by the First Appellate Court
needs no interference by this court, that too in the
revisional jurisdiction.
18. However taking note of the fact that there are no
criminal antecedents as against the revision petitioners
and there is no further complaint against the present
petitioners after the alleged incident which is the subject
matter of the present case, this court is of the considered
that exercising the power vested in this court in the
revisional jurisdiction, taking note of the fact that under
Section 51 of the Wildlife Protection Act, there is a
discretion available to the court to impose fine or
imprisonment and fine of Rs.25,000/- and three years
respectively. This court deems fit that this is a fit case
where such discretion can be used in favour of the revision
petitioners. Accordingly the following:
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:44461
ORDER
Criminal revision petition is allowed in part
while maintaining the conviction of the accused
for the offence punishable under Sections 39(d)
and 51 of the Wildlife Protection Act, sentence is
modified as under:
Custody period already undergone by
accused no.2 to 5 is treated as period of
imprisonment by enhancing the fine amount of
Rs.20,000/- each to be paid on or before
31.12.2024, failing which the order of the Trial
Magistrate, confirmed by the First appellate
Court stands restored automatically.
Office is directed to return the Trial Court
records with copy of this order forthwith.
Sd/-
(V SRISHANANDA)
JUDGE
SD
