Karnataka High Court
Appanna Basavanneppa Janakatti vs The State Of Karnataka on 4 March, 2025
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4197
CRL.RP No. 100125 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100125 OF 2015
(397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
1. SHRI APPANNA BASAVANNEPPA JANAKATTI
AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KOLAVI VILLAGE, TQ. GOKAK,
DIST. BELAGAVI.
2. SHRI BALAPPA YALLAPPA NEGALI
AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KOLAVI VILLAGE, TQ. GOKAK,
DIST. BELAGAVI.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI G.B. NAIK AND SMT.P.G. NAIK, ADVOCATES)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
R/BY. SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
Digitally
signed by V
N BADIGER
DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD.
VN
BADIGER Date:
2025.03.10 ...RESPONDENT
14:31:37
+0530
(BY SMT.GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 R/W. 401 OF CR.P.C 1973, SEEKING THAT THE ENTIRE
RECORDS IN C.C.NO.332/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL
JMFC GOKAK AND CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.10/2013 ON THE FILE OF
THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK AND ADDL. SESSIONS
JUDGE, GOKAK BE KINDLY CALLED FOR EXAMINED. THE JUDGMENT
AND ORDER DATED 10.03.2015 PASSED IN CRL.A.NO.10/2013 BY
THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK & ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,
GOKAK, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER
OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 05.01.2013 PASSED IN
C.C.NO.332/2004 BY THE PRL. JMFC COURT, GOKAK FOR THE
OFFENCES UNDER SECTION 24(G) OF KARNATAKA FOREST ACT, BE
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4197
CRL.RP No. 100125 of 2015
SET ASIDE AND CONSEQUENTLY THE REVISION PETITIONERS BE
ACQUITTED.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA)
1. Heard Smt.P.G.Naik learned counsel for the
petitioners and Smt.Girija S. Hiremath, learned High Court
Government Pleader for respondent-State.
2. Revision petitioners are the accused persons
who suffered an order of conviction in C.C.No.332/2004
for the offence punishable under Section 24(g) of the
Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 and sentenced to undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of six months each and
shall pay fine of Rs.2,000/- each. In default they shall
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days.
3. Validity of the conviction order and sentence
was questioned by the revision petitioners in
Crl.A.No.10/2013.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4197
4. Learned judge in the first appellate Court after
securing the records and hearing the parties in detail, in
the light of the appeal grounds dismissed the appeal and
confirmed the order of conviction and sentence.
5. Being further aggrieved by the same, accused
Nos.1 and 4 are before this Court in this revision petition.
6. Heard Smt.P.G.Naik, learned counsel for
revision petitioners, reiterating the grounds urged in the
revision petition, vehemently contended that the
impugned judgment is incorrect and suffering from legal
infirmities and patent factual error inasmuch as there is no
material on record to show that the place of the incident
was a reserved forest area, which is a sine qua non for
proceeding against the accused either for the offence
under Section 27 of the Karnataka Forest Act or under
Section 24(g) of the Karnataka Forest Act, and sought for
allowing the petition.
7. Alternatively, counsel for revision petitioners
would submit that in the event this Court upholding the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4197
order of conviction, taking note of the age of the revision
petitioners and also taking note of the fact that they did
not claimed any right title and interest over the disputed
land and also taking note of the fact that they didare the
first time offenders, imprisonment may be set aside by
enhancing the fine amount reasonably.
8. Per contra, Smt. Girija S. Hiremath, learned
High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State,
would support the impugned judgment.
9. She would further contend that the place of
incident is admittedly falling under reserved forest area, as
could be seen from materials placed on record and
therefore, action attributable to the revision petitioners are
clearing the forest land for the purpose of personal gain
which would complete the offence punishable under
Section 27 of the Karnataka Forest Act and 24(g) of the
Karnataka forest Act and which has been rightly
appreciated by the learned trial magistrate and learned
trial magistrate has acquitted the revision petitioners for
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4197
the offences punishable under Sections 24(a), (b), (c),(ii),
(e), (g), (gg) and 73(d) of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963,
shows that there is sufficient application of mind on the
part of the learned trial judge, while passing the impugned
order and therefore, sought for dismissal of the revision
petition.
10. Further, Smt Girija S. Hiremath would contend
that if people like revision petitioners are shown mercy or
leniency, similarly placed perpetrators of the crime would
get encouraged and indulgence in similar activities in
future. As such it would send wrong message to the
society and thus sought for the dismissal of the revision
petition in toto.
11. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this
Court perused the material on record meticulously. On
such perusal of the materials on record, ROR extract, map
and measurement panchanama, placed before the Court
vide Exs.P.4, 5 and 7 would make it clear that the place of
incident is the reserved forest area.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4197
12. If any of the occupants, who are having their
lands adjacent to the forest area, there may be scope for
encroachment not knowing very well has to be boundary
of the reserved forest area. But the case of hand, the
revision petitioners did not possess any such land
belonging to them, which is adjacent to the reserved
forest area. Therefore, the fact remains that accused
persons being the persons who wanted to take advantage
of the reserved forest area and cleared the forest land for
the purpose of personal gain, which would complete the
offence punishable under Section 24(g) of the Karnataka
Forest Act. Therefore, conviction revision petitioner
recorded by the learned trial magistrate and confirmed by
the first appellate Court needs no interference in this
revision petition.
13. However, with regard to the sentence of
imprisonment is concerned, there is sufficient force in the
arguments put forth on behalf of the revision petitioners
that they are first time offender and poor villagers.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4197
14. Therefore, taking note of their age and also
taking note of the fact that they are the first time
offenders and there is no minimum punishment prescribed
for the offence for which the revision petitioners have been
convicted, directing the payment of enhanced fine amount
of Rs.10,000/- each by the revision petitioners with
sentence of imprisonment is set aside. Accordingly the
following:
ORDER
(i) Criminal Revision Petition is allowed in part.
(ii) While maintaining the conviction of the
revision petitioners for the offences
punishable under Sections 24(g) of the
Karnataka Forest Act, the sentence of
imprisonment ordered by the learned Trial
Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate
Court is set aside by enhancing the fine
amount in a sum of Rs.10,000/- for all the
aforesaid offences payable by each of the
accused on or before 30.03.2025. Failure to
make the enhanced payment on or before
30.03.2025 would result in restoration of the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4197
jail sentence ordered by the learned Trial
Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate
Court.
(iii) Office to return the Trial Court records along
with a copy of this order for issuance of
modified conviction warrant.
SD/-
(V.SRISHANANDA)
JUDGE
AC
CT:PA
