[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Anilkumar vs State Of Kerala on 23 February, 2026
2026:KER:15260
Crl.R.P.No.1681/2012
-:1:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH
MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 4TH PHALGUNA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1681 OF 2012
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.03.2012 IN CRL.A NO.458 OF
2010 OF III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM,
ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.10.2010 IN CC NO.651 OF
2005 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II(FOREST
OFFENCES),PUNALUR
REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
ANILKUMAR,
AGED 31 YEARS,
S/O.KUTTAN, CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU,
THACHANKONAM,
MARTHANDANKARA,
EZHAMKULAM,
THINKALKARIKKOM VILLAGE,
PATHANAPURAM TALUK,
KOLLAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.K.SIJU
SMT.BINDU GEORGE
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/DE FACTO COMPLAINANT & STATE:
STATE OF KERALA THROUGH THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER,
ANCHAL RANGE,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM-682031.
BY ADV SRI. ARAVIND V. MATHEW, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
(FOREST)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 19.02.2026, THE COURT ON 23.02.2026 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:15260
Crl.R.P.No.1681/2012
-:2:-
ORDER
The concurrent findings of the Judicial First Class Magistrate
Court-II, (Forest Offences), Punalur, and the Additional Sessions
Court-III, Kollam, in C.C.No. 651/2005 & Crl.A.No.458/2010,respectively,
convicting and sentencing the petitioner for the commission of offences
under Sections 27(1)(d), 27(1) (e)(iv) & 27(1) (e)(v) of the Kerala Forest
Act, 1961 (in short, 'Act') are under challenge in this revision petition
filed by the second accused in the said case.
2. The prosecution case is that the petitioner, along with the
first accused, unlawfully entered in the reserve forest coming under
Marthandakara reserve and illegally collected sand from Marthandankara
Thodu and thereby committed the aforesaid offences. The forest staff of
Urukunnu Beat are said to have detected the offence on 08.09.2005.
3. In the trial before the learned Magistrate, five witnesses were
examined from the part of the prosecution as PW1 to PW5, and six
documents were brought on record as Exts P1 to P6. Two material
objects were identified as MO1 & MO2. The accused did not choose to
adduce any defence evidence. Relying on the aforesaid evidence
adduced by the prosecution, the learned Magistrate came to the finding
2026:KER:15260
that the petitioner committed the offences punishable under Sections
27(1)(d), 27(1) (e)(iv) & 27(1) (e)(v) of the Act. Though the petitioner
challenged the aforesaid verdict before the Appellate Court, the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Kollam, who considered the appeal, declined
to interfere with the findings of the learned Magistrate. Accordingly the
appeal was dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence awarded
by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the above concurrent verdicts of the
courts below, the petitioner is here before this Court with this revision
petition.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.
5. The primary requirement to be fulfilled for a successful
prosecution for the offences alleged in this case is that the prosecution
has to show that the petitioner had unlawfully entered into an area
which has been notified as reserve forest under Section 19 of the Act,
and removed sand which could be termed as a forest produce. Thus, the
production of the certified copy of the relevant gazette notification
showing that the place of occurrence comes under reserve forest is the
basic requirement which the prosecution is bound to establish. As far as
2026:KER:15260
the present case is concerned, Ext P6 is the document relied on by the
prosecution for fulfilling the above requirement. However, it could be
seen that the aforesaid document is not the certified copy of the gazette.
Instead, a printed copy of a document titled 'The Travancore
Government Gazette' with an endorsement as 'extract from gazette in
the bottom most portion' has been produced and marked as Ext P6.
Though there is a signature found in that document above the seal of
the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, there is no endorsement made
thereunder that it is the certified copy of the gazette concerned. It is not
possible to accept the aforesaid document as the certified copy of the
required gazette notification to show that the place of occurrence came
under reserve forest.
6. It is also pertinent to note that as per the averments in
Ext P1 mahazer, the petitioner and the other accused are said to have
collected sand from Marthandakara Thodu, which separates
Marthandankara Reserve Forest and oil palm plantation. It is not
possible to discern from the above mahazar as to whether the petitioner
and the other accused are alleged to have collected sand from the shore
of that stream abutting the reserve forest to say that the aforesaid act
2026:KER:15260
was done within the reserve forest. Therefore, the facts disclosed from
Ext P1, which is the basic document relied on by the prosecution in
support of the charge levelled against the petitioner, are totally
insufficient to establish the offences alleged against him.
7. It is also pertinent to note that the courts below placed heavy
reliance upon the confession said to have been made by the petitioner to
the Forest Range Officer to fasten him with the criminal liability alleged in
this case. Going by the provisions contained in Section 72 of the Act,
only those Forest Officers not below the rank of Assistant Conservator of
Forest are empowered to hold inquiries into forest offences and to
receive and record evidence in such inquiries. In view of the above
specific mandate contained in Section 72 of the Act, the recording of
confession statements by the Forest Range Officer cannot be said to be
done in compliance with the provisions of law. Thus, it is apparent that
the courts below relied on evidence which was explicitly unacceptable.
Since it is seen that the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court placed
reliance on materials, which were manifestly not liable to be acted upon
in view of the relevant provisions of law, it is highly necessary to set
2026:KER:15260
aside the findings of the courts below in exercise of the revisional powers
of this Court.
In the result, the petition stands allowed. The concurrent findings
of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, (Forest Offences), Punalur,
and the Additional Sessions Court-III, Kollam, in C.C.No. 651/2005 &
Crl.A.No.458/2010,respectively, convicting and sentencing the petitioner
for the commission of offence under Sections 27(1)(d), 27(1) (e)(iv) &
27(1) (e)(v) of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961, are hereby set aside. The
petitioner/ accused is acquitted of the aforesaid offences. His bail bond
stands cancelled and he is set at liberty.
(Sd/-)
G. GIRISH, JUDGE
DST
