Karnataka High Court
Sri.Madashetty @ Mada vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 January, 2025
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:2155
CRL.RP No. 800 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.800 OF 2020
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. MADASHETTY @ MADA,
S/O VENKATASHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
R/AT BANNITHALAPURA VILLAGE,
GUNDLUPET TALUK,
CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT-571 111.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. P. NATARAJU, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY NANJANAGUD RURAL POLICE STATION,
MYSURU DISTRICT,
Digitally signed REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
by DEVIKA M HIGH COURT BUILDING,
Location: HIGH BENGALURU-560 001.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF
CR.PC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER
PASSED BY THE LEARNED VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AT MYSURU IN CRL.A.NO.264/2019 DATED
07.09.2020 AND THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED BY THE
LEARNED PRL.CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND JMFC AT NANJANGUD
IN C.C.NO.774/2002 DATED 16.08.2019 AND ACQUIT THE
PETITIONER BY ALLOWING THIS RP.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:2155
CRL.RP No. 800 of 2020
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the
respondent.
2. This revision petition is filed challenging the order of
conviction and sentence of the petitioner for the offence
punishable under Section 87 of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963
read with Section 379 of IPC, wherein the Trial Court convicted
and sentenced the petitioner for the above offence for two years
and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine
to undergo further four months simple imprisonment and the
same has been challenged before the Appellate Court and the
Appellate Court also confirmed the said order.
3. Being aggrieved by the said order, the same is
challenged before this Court.
4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner before this Court is that the very case of the
prosecution before the Trial Court is that this petitioner was
apprehended along with 15 kgs. of sandalwood pieces i.e., 81
pieces. On 08.07.2002 on credible information at around 12.30
NC: 2025:KHC:2155
p.m. conducted the raid and two persons were coming from
Gundlupet in a scooter and arrested both of them in Crime
No.185/2002. The investigation was conducted and filed the
charge sheet against accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences
punishable under Sections 86 and 87 of the Karnataka Forest
Act read with Section 379 of IPC. The prosecution in order to
prove the charges leveled against the petitioner herein
examined five witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.5 and got marked the
documents at Exs.P.1 to and M.O.1 to M.O.4 are identified. The
petitioner was subjected to 313 statement and the Trial Court
having considered the material on record convicted and
sentenced the petitioner to undergo sentence of two years with
fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo
four months simple imprisonment and the same has been
confirmed by the Appellate Court.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would
vehemently contend that both the Courts failed to take note of
the material on record and committed an error and seizure was
not proved in accordance with law. P.W.1 and P.W.2 have stated
that no identification marks and numbers were given to the
sandalwood billets in their presence. The learned counsel
contend that the Range Forest Officer has not been examined
NC: 2025:KHC:2155
before the Trial Court and in order to prove their case relied
upon Ex.P.4 certificate. The Investigation Officer has not
produced the notification issued by the Government to show
that the Range Forest Officer has undergone training and
notified to exercise the powers as prescribed under Section 62C
of the Karnataka Forest Act. There is no compliance of
mandatory provisions of law. The learned counsel also relied
upon the judgment of this Court in the case of
RAGHAVENDRACHARI v. STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in
ILR 2010 KAR 3382 and contend that when there is no
compliance, the very order of conviction and sentence is not
sustainable in the eye of law. Both the Courts failed to take
note of Sections 62C and 87 of the Karnataka Forest Act and
hence it requires interference of this Court.
6. Per contra, the learned High Court Government
Pleader appearing for the respondent State admits that the
Range Forest Officer was not examined before the Trial Court.
However, contend that sandalwood pieces 81 in number
weighing 15 kgs. were seized at the instance of this petitioner
and other accused has not preferred any appeal and only this
petitioner has challenged the order. The learned counsel
contend that though the Trial Court passed a cryptic order, the
NC: 2025:KHC:2155
Appellate Court in detail discussed the material on record and
taking note of the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.5 and Investigating
Officer who apprehended the petitioner was also examined
before the Trial Court and hence it does not require interference
of this Court.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner
and the learned High Court Government Pleader and also
looking into the material on record and also the grounds which
have been urged in the revision petition, the points that arise for
the consideration of this Court are:
(i) Whether the Trial Court committed an error in
convicting the petitioner for the offence
punishable under Section 87 of Karnataka
Forest Act read with Section 379 of IPC and
whether it requires interference of this Court
by exercising the revisional jurisdiction?
(ii) What order?
8. Having heard the respective learned counsel for the
parties and also considering the material on record, the factual
aspects of the case of the prosecution is that on 08.07.2002,
PSI Nanjangud Rural Police Station received credible information
about transportation of sandalwood billets and accordingly he
along with his staff went to Deveerammannahundi Village gate
NC: 2025:KHC:2155
on Nanjangud-Gundlupet Main Road and at about 12.30 p.m.,
two persons were coming from Gundlupet in a scooter and when
the respondent police stopped them and searched their bag and
scooter dickey, they found sandalwood billets and also pieces
weighing about 15 kgs. and those two persons were not
possessing any licence or permit to transport the same. The
police arrested both of them and conducted the mahazar and
seized the same and sent the same to the Forest Department
and after the investigation filed the charge sheet.
9. The main contention of the petitioner before this
Court is that the very reasoning given by the Trial Court and the
Appellate Court is erroneous and failed to take note of the fact
that the very seizure has not been proved and contend that
P.W.1 and P.W.2 have stated that no identification marks and
numbers were given to the sandalwood billets in their presence.
That learned counsel contend that even not obtained any
certificate and though relied upon Ex.P.4, the Range Forest
Officer has not been examined. Section 62C of the Karnataka
Forest Act is clear that the Range Forest Officer must have the
training and there is no such mandatory compliance also. The
learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of this Court in
the case of Raghavendrachari (supra), wherein this Court
NC: 2025:KHC:2155
taken note of Section 62C as well as Section 87 of the
Karnataka Forest Act, wherein challenge was made with regard
to conviction under Section 87 of the Act and also taken note of
the certificate issued by the Range Forest Officer i.e., P.W.2 and
certificate Ex.P.4 and comes to the conclusion that there is no
evidence to the effect that P.W.2 has undergone training as
prescribed under Section 62C of the Act or that he was
authorized by the Government to issue such certificate. Hence,
no reliance can be placed on Ex.P.4 to hold that the material
seized is sandalwood. Therefore, on this ground alone the
petitioner is entitled to an order of acquittal.
10. The learned counsel referring this judgment brought
to the notice of this Court that the Trial Court examined five
witnesses i.e., P.W.1 to P.W.4 are the witnesses of raiding
parties and P.W.5 is the Investigating Officer, who seized the
sandalwood pieces, but not examined the Range Forest Officer
with regard to the issuance of the Range Forest Officer report
which is marked as Ex.P.4. It has to be noted that the present
case is worst than the other reported case, which was referred
by the learned counsel for the petitioner, wherein P.W.2 has
been examined. But in the case on hand, the Range Forest
Officer has not been examined who gave the report in terms of
NC: 2025:KHC:2155
Ex.P.4 and only relied upon the evidence of the raiding parties
and no material is produced before the Court that it is a forest
produce i.e., particularly the seized articles are sandalwood
pieces and no evidence before the Court that the same is
material object of sandalwood pieces. No doubt, in case of
sandalwood billets is concerned, particular numbers are to be
given, but in the case on hand, they are sandalwood pieces and
not billets and in order to prove the fact that Ex.P.4 is the
certificate, there is no any compliance of Section 62C of the Act.
The provisions of Section 62C of the Act is very clear that
certificate of Forest Officer to be an evidence in order to comes
to the conclusion that there is a material that seized articles is a
forest produce. Having read Section 62C of the Act, it is clear
that any document purporting to be a certificate under the hand
of a Forest Officer not below the rank of a Range Forest Officer
who has undergone training in the examination of forest produce
and who is so authorised by the State Government in this behalf
in respect of forest produce, submitted to him for examination
and report, may be used as evidence of the facts stated in such
certificate in any proceedings under this Act; but the Court may,
if it things fit, and shall on the application of the prosecution or
NC: 2025:KHC:2155
the accused person summon and examine any such Forest
Officer as to the subject matter of his certificate.
11. Having considered the provisions of Section 62C of
the Act, first of all the Range Forest Officer has not been
examined before the Trial Court in order to prove the document
of Ex.P.4. The certificate is issued in terms of Ex.P.4 and the
author of the document has not been examined. The provisions
of Section 62C of the Act is very clear that he must have
undergone training in examination of forest produce and no such
report is also placed before the Court and also no notification is
issued before the Trial Court. When such being the case, the
Trial Court ought to have considered the said fact and also
Section 62C of the Act and when there is no evidence of
compliance of Section 62C of the Act, the Trial Court ought not
to have relied upon the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.5. P.W.5 is
the Investigation Officer who seized the articles, but he is not a
competent person to speak with regard to the material object
that the same is forest produce. Apart from that, though the
document of Ex.P.4 is marked through the prosecution
witnesses and expert has not been examined and the author of
the document also has not been examined and there is no
material evidence before the Court that the seized article is
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:2155
forest produce and the same belongs to sandalwood pieces and
unless that material is placed before the Court, the Trial Court
ought not to have relied upon the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.5.
12. The learned High Court Government Pleader contend
that the Appellate Court discussed in length the material on
record and reasoned order has been passed. The said
contention cannot be accepted for the reason that mandatory
provisions of Section 62C of the Act has not been complied while
considering the material on record and finding of the Appellate
Court also not touched upon Section 62C of the Act and nothing
is discussed in the judgment of the Appellate Court with regard
to the very provision of Section 62C of the Act and unless
mandatory provisions is complied, conviction and sentence is
not sustainable in the eye of law. There is a force in the
contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law. The very
contention of the learned High Court Government Pleader that a
detailed order has been passed by the Appellate Court cannot be
accepted unless legal evidence is placed on record. The
conviction and sentence is not sustainable in the eye of law and
it requires interference. Hence, I answer the point for
consideration in the affirmative in coming to the conclusion that
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:2155
the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court committed an
error in not considering the legal evidence available on record.
Hence, it requires interference of this Court.
13. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
(i) The criminal revision petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned order of conviction and
sentence passed by the Trial Court is
dismissed and the order passed by the First
Appellate Court confirming the order of the
Trial Court is set aside. Consequently, the
petitioner is acquitted for the offence
punishable under Section 87 of the Karnataka
Forest Act, 1963 read with Section 379 of IPC.
If any bond is executed by the petitioner, the
same is cancelled and if any fine amount is
deposited, the same is ordered to be refunded
in favour of the petitioner, on proper
identification.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
MD
