Kerala High Court

Das,S/O.Rajayya vs State Of Kerala on 7 February, 2024

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM


                           PRESENT


             THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH


 WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY   2024 / 18TH MAGHA, 1945


                CRL.REV.PET NO. 1641 OF 2006


AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE PASSED BY THE
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, DEVIKULAM IN CC NO.83/03
 AND CONFIRMED IN CRA 146/2005 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
                     (NDPS), THODUPUZHA


PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:


         DAS, S/O.RAJAYYA, HOUSE NO.110, BABU NAGAR,
         MARAYOOR VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM.


RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:


         STATE OF KERALA THROUGH FOREST OFFICER, MARAYOOR,
         REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
         KERALA.


     THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL
HEARING ON 27.11.2023, THE COURT ON 07.02.2024 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
                                     2
Crl.R.P.No.1641 of 2006



                              G.GIRISH, J.
                              ---------------
                       Crl.R.P.No.1641 of 2006
                      ------------------------------
             Dated this the 7th day of February, 2024
            -------------------------------------------------

                               ORDER

The concurrent findings of Judicial First Class Magistrate

Court, Devikulam in C.C.No.83 of 2003 and the Additional

Sessions Court, Thodupuzha in Crl.Appeal No.146 of 2005,

convicting and sentencing the accused, for the offence under

Section 27(1)(e)(iii) of the Kerala Forest Act, are under

challenge in this revision.

2. The prosecution case is that the accused trespassed

into sandalwood reserve forest, Nachivayal No.1 on

16.07.1999 and felled one sandalwood tree and attempted to

remove the said wooden logs.

3. Before the trial court the prosecution examined four

witnesses as PW1 to PW4 and marked three documents as

Exts.P1 to P3. The saw used by the accused for cutting the

sandalwood tree was identified and marked as MO1. After

evaluating the above evidence and hearing both sides, the

learned Magistrate found the accused/revision petitioner guilty

of the offence under Sections 27(1)(e)(iii) and 27(1)(e)(iv) of

the Kerala Forest Act and convicted him thereunder. He was

sentenced to simple imprisonment for one year and fine

Rs.2,000/- for the offence under Section 27(1)(e)(iii) of the

Kerala Forest Act. No separate sentence was awarded for the

offence under Section 27(1)(e)(iv) of the said Act.

4. Though the revision petitioner/accused challenged

the above verdict of the learned Magistrate by filing Crl.Appeal

No.146 of 2005 before the Additional Sessions Judge,

Thodupuzha, the Appellate Court declined to interfere with the

findings of the learned Magistrate.

5. Aggrieved by the above concurrent findings of

conviction and sentence of the courts below, the revision

petitioner is here before this Court.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner

and the learned Public Prosecutor.

7. As already stated above, the learned Magistrate

relied on the evidence adduced by the prosecution through the

oral testimonies of PW1 to PW4 and the documents marked as

Exts.P1 to P3 and the material object identified as MO1 towards

arriving at the finding that the accused/revision petitioner

committed the offence under Sections 27(1)(e)(iii) and

27(1)(e)(iv) of the Kerala Forest Act. It is true that all the

above witnesses are forest officials. But the above aspect

cannot be taken as a circumstance adversely affecting the

prosecution case, since it is not possible to expect any

independent witness inside the reserve forest, where the

offence involved in this case is found to have been committed.

The testimonies of PW1 to PW4 do not suffer from any material

inconsistency or inherent defects rendering in unreliable. So

also, Ext.P1 mahazar and Ext.P2 Form.1 report prepared by

the officers concerned, in connection with the commission of

offence, when taken along with the circumstances leading to

the seizure of MO1- saw from the custody of the revision

petitioner at a place inside the notified sandalwood reserve

forest, would clearly point to the involvement of the revision

petitioner in the crime.

8. The proposition of law upon the scope of interference

in revision, in matters like this, is well settled by a catena of

decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

9. In State of Kerala v. Jathadevan Namboodiri :

AIR 1999 SC 981, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:

Ordinarily, therefore, it would not be appropriate for the High Court to reappreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion on the same when the evidence has already been appreciated by the Magistrate as well as Sessions Judge in appeal unless any glaring feature is brought to the notice of the High Court which would otherwise tantamount to gross miscarriage of justice.

10. In Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan v. Dattatray

Gulabrao Phalke & Anr : 2015 (3) SCC 123, it has been held

by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as follows:

Revisional power of the court under Sections 397 to 401 of Cr.PC is not to be equated with that of an appeal. Unless the finding of the court, whose decision is sought to be revised, is shown to be perverse or untenable in law or is grossly erroneous or glaringly unreasonable or where the decision is based on no material or where the material facts are wholly ignored or where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously, the courts may not interfere with decision in exercise of their revisional jurisdiction.

11. Referring the above dictums, the Apex Court has

observed in Kishan Rao v. Shankargouda : 2018 (8) SCC

165 as follows:

Another judgment which has also been referred to and relied by the High Court is the judgment of this Court in Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan vs. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke and others, 2015 (3) SCC 123. This Court held that the High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction shall not interfere with the order of the Magistrate unless it is perverse or wholly unreasonable or there is non- consideration of any relevant material, the order cannot be set aside merely on the ground that another view is possible. Following has been laid down in paragraph 14:

"14.....Unless the order passed by the Magistrate is perverse or the view taken by the court is wholly unreasonable or there is non-consideration of any relevant material or there is palpable misreading of records, the Revisional Court is not justified in setting aside the order, merely because another view is possible. The Revisional Court is not meant to act as an appellate court. The whole purpose of the revisional jurisdiction is to preserve the power in the court to do justice in accordance with the principles of criminal jurisprudence. The revisional power of the court under Sections 397 to 401 CrPC is not to be equated with that of an appeal. Unless the finding of the court, whose decision is sought to

be revised, is shown to be perverse or untenable in law or is grossly erroneous or glaringly unreasonable or where the decision is based on no material or where the material facts are wholly ignored or where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously, the courts may not interfere with decision in exercise of their revisional jurisdiction."

12. Therefore, there is absolutely no reason to interfere

with the concurrent findings of courts below leading to the

conviction of the petitioner for the commission of offences under

Sections 27(1)(e)(iii) and 27(1)(e)(iv), and sentence awarded

for the offence under Section 27(1)(e)(iii) of the Kerala Forest

Act.

13. In the result, the revision petition is hereby

dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by

the trial court, which has been upheld by the Appellate Court.

Transmit the case records, along with a copy of this order,

to the trial court, for immediate enforcement of the sentence.

(sd/-)