Karnataka High Court
Gangadhara vs State By Range Forest Officer on 4 September, 2024
Author: Mohammad Nawaz
Bench: Mohammad Nawaz
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:36424
CRL.A No. 906 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 906 OF 2012
BETWEEN:
GANGADHARA
S/O LATE THIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
BASAVANAHALLI,
BEHIND SILEKHA THEATURE,
KADUR ROAD,
CHIKKAMAGALORE.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. B. M. MOHAN KUMAR., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally STATE BY RANGE FOREST OFFICER,
signed by ALUR, REP. BY SPP,
YAMUNA K L HIGH COURT,
Location: BANGALORE.
High Court of ...RESPONDENT
Karnataka (BY SRI. RANGASWAMY. R., HCGP)
THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.374(2) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF
SENTENCE DATED 13/7/2012 PASSED IN S.C. No.176/2010 BY
THE ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN - CONVICTING THE
APPELLANT/ ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S.24 & 86 OF
KARNATAKA FOREST ACT.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:36424
CRL.A No. 906 of 2012
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred by the accused, assailing the
judgment and order dated 13.07.2012 passed by the
Court of the Additional Sessions Judge at Hassan in
S.C.No.176/2010, convicting him for the offence
punishable under Section 24 and 86 of the Karnataka
Forest Act, 1963.
2. The learned Sessions Judge has sentenced the
accused to undergo Simple Imprisonment for three
months and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo
Simple Imprisonment for one month, for the offence
punishable under Section 24 of the Karnataka Forest Act,
1963.
3. The accused is sentenced to undergo Simple
Imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of
Rs.50,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment
for one year eight months, for the offence punishable
under Section 86 of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963.
NC: 2024:KHC:36424
4. Heard both the sides and perused the material
on record.
5. Briefly stated, prosecution has alleged that on
15.12.2011, accused has illegally cut a sandalwood tree in
the reserve forest of Nakalagodu, near Konanakunte,
using saw-blade and converted it into 8 billets and thereby
committed the charged offences.
6. PW.1 and his staff while on patrolling, heard
someone cutting the tree as such they chased and
apprehended the accused. Eight sandalwood billets and
sandalwood chips weighing 28.5 Kgs and two
saw-blades were seized in the presence of panchas under
a mahazar-Ex.P1.
7. As per the valuation certificate submitted by
PW.4-Range Forest Officer, eight sandalwood billets
weighing about 28.5 Kgs was valued at Rs.1,425/-.
8. The complainant is examined as PW.1. He was
working as Forester at Aluru Forest Range. His evidence
discloses that he along with the Forest guard and forest
watchman, while on patrolling duty heard the sound of
NC: 2024:KHC:36424
cutting the tree and when they went to the spot, they saw
the accused, who tried to run away. They surrounded and
apprehended him. On enquiry, he confessed to have cut
the sandalwood tree. Eight sandalwood billets and
sandalwood chips marked as Mos.3 to 11 and two
saw-blades marked as MOs.1 and 2 were seized, under a
mahazar, Ex.P1 in the presence of panchas. PW.1 has
stated that he registered a case and sent the FIR-Ex.P2 to
Jurisdictional Court.
9. PWs.2 and 3 are the panch witnesses to the
Mahazar-Ex.P1. PW.4 is the Range Forest Officer, who
issued Ex.P3, valuation report and on completion of
investigation, filed the charge sheet.
10. According to PW.1 he along with the forest
guard one Dinesh and forest watchman one Komalesh,
while on patrolling duty, noticed the accused cutting the
sandal wood tree and they surrounded and apprehended
him.
11. The forest guard and forest watchman have not
tendered their evidence before the Court. Hence, the
NC: 2024:KHC:36424
prosecution is relying on the evidence of PW.1 and the
evidence of panch witnesses namely PW.2 and PW.3 to
establish the guilt of the accused.
12. A perusal of the evidence of PW.2 shows that
after the mahazar was prepared, he has signed the said
mahazar. He has stated that the forest officers had
brought MOs.1 to 11 near the road from the spot and
there were about 25 villagers gathered and by the time
they brought the said articles, they had already prepared
the mahazar.
13. PW.2 has not at all stated the presence of
another mahazar witnesses i.e., PW.3. Further according
to the PW.3, except the forest officials no one was present
at the time of preparing the mahazar. He has not at all
stated the presence of PW.2 as well as the villagers
gathered at the spot.
14. Except the evidence of PW.1 there is no other
evidence to show that the accused was found cutting the
sandalwood tree in the reserved forest and he tried to run
away after seeing the forest officials. Both the panchas
NC: 2024:KHC:36424
have admitted their acquaintance with the forest officials.
There is discrepancy in their evidence. The evidence of
panch witnesses does not inspire the confidence of the
Court.
15. Learned counsel for appellant has contended
that there is no certificate issued in this case under
Section 62-C of the Karnataka Forest Act, to show that the
seized billets are sandal wood billets . He contended that
even if there is any certificate issued under Section 62-C,
the said certificate has to be issued by an Authorized
person who has undergone training. He has relied on a
decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of STATE Of
KARNATAKA V/s. PRAKASH AND OTEHRS reported in
(2019) 14 SCC 229.
16. In the above decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court
has held that although the seized goods of forest produce
is showed and proved by the prosecution as sandalwood
by the examining experts, the course adopted for the
same was not in consonance with the provisions of the
Section 62-C of the Act.
NC: 2024:KHC:36424
17. The Apex Court noticed that the prosecution
could not produce any evidence to show that the Range
Forest Officer concerned who issued the certificate was
qualified to do the same as prescribed under the
provisions of Section 62-C of the Act which makes it
mandatory that the officer concern should have been
authorized by the Government and should have received
training for examining the forest produce.
18. In the case on hand no such certificate has
been produced and marked by the prosecution. Ex.P3 is
only a valuation report issued by PW.4. He has not at all
stated having received any training for examining the
forest produced, nevertheless, there is no certificate
issued by him.
19. For the aforesaid reasons, it cannot be said that
the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused for
the offence for which he has been convicted by the Trial
Court. Appeal deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the
following:
NC: 2024:KHC:36424
ORDER
i) Appeal is allowed.
ii) Judgment and order dated 13.07.2012 passed
by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge at Hassan in
S.C.No.176/2010, convicting and sentencing the
accused/appellant for the offences punishable under
Section 24 and 86 of the Karnataka Forest Act is hereby
set aside.
iii) The bail bond stands cancelled.
iv) If any fine amount has been deposited the
same shall be refunded to the appellant.
Sd/-
(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ)
JUDGE
LDC
