[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Veluchami vs State Of Kerala on 23 February, 2026
2026:KER:15991
Crl.R.P.No.208/2013
-: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. 208 OF 2013
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 02.01.2013 IN CRL.A NO.7 OF
2008 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (ADHOC)-II, KOLLAM, ARISING
OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.12.2007 IN CC NO.392 OF 2004 OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II(FOREST OFFENCES),PUNALUR
REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/ACCUSED:
1 VELUCHAMI
INDIRA NAGAR COLONY,
THEKKUMEDU BHAGOM,
PULIYARA VILLAGE,
SCHENCHOTTA TALUK,
TIRUNELVELIU DISTRICT,
TAMILNADU.
2 BALAN
INDIRA NAGAR,
THEKKETHERU,
PULIYARA VILLAGE,
SCHENCHOTTA TALUK,
TIRUNELVELIU DISTRICT,
TAMILNADU.
3 SUBHAYYAH
INDIRA NAGAR COLONY,
THEKKETHERU, PULIYARA VILLAGE,
SCHENCHOTTA TALUK,
TIRUNELVELIU DISTRICT,
TAMILNADU.
4 PICHAYYAH
INDIRA NAGAR COLONY,
THEKKETHERU,
PULIYARA VILLAGE,
SCHENCHOTTA TALUK,
TIRUNELVELIU DISTRICT,
2026:KER:15991
Crl.R.P.No.208/2013
-:2:-
TAMILNADU.
BY ADVS.SRI.V.JAYAPRADEEP
SMT.V.V.RISANI
SHRI.SANEESH KUNJUKUNJU
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER,
THENMALA, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM,
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. ARAVIND V. MATHEW, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 23.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:15991
Crl.R.P.No.208/2013
-:3:-
ORDER
The concurrent findings of the Judicial First Class Magistrate
Court-II (Forest Offences), Punalur, and the Additional Sessions Court
(Adhoc-II), Kollam, in C.C.No. 392/2004 & Crl.A.No.7/2008 respectively,
convicting and sentencing the petitioners for the commission of offences
under Sections 27(1)(e)(iii) & 27(1)(e)(iv) of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961,
are under challenge in this revision petition.
2. The prosecution case is that on 29.04.2004, the petitioners
trespassed into the reserve forest coming under Thenmala Range of
Ayyappankavu Reserve, and attempted to cut down and remove reeds,
causing a loss to the tune of Rs.2,000/- to the Government. In
connection with the aforesaid offences, the Forest Range Officer,
Thenmala, laid the final report before the learned Magistrate.
3. In the trial before the learned Magistrate, the prosecution
examined four witnesses as PW1 to PW4, and brought on record seven
documents as Exts P1 to P7. MO1 series were also identified as material
objects. After analysing the aforesaid evidence, the learned Magistrate
found the petitioners guilty of the commission of the aforesaid offences,
and accordingly, convicted them. The petitioners were sentenced to
undergo simple imprisonment for one year, and fine of Rs.1,000/- each,
2026:KER:15991
for each of the above offences. A default clause of simple imprisonment
for two months was provided for non-payment of the fine. Though the
petitioners challenged the above verdict before the Appellate Court, the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, 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 petitioners are here before this Court with this revision
petition.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned
Government Pleader representing the Forest Department.
5. The Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court placed heavy
reliance upon the evidence tendered by PW1 to PW4, who are Forest
Officials, to arrive at the finding that the petitioners committed the
offences alleged against them. On going through the case records and
the reasonings adopted by the courts below in the impugned judgments,
I find no reason to interfere with the aforesaid findings of the courts
below. The Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court came to the
conclusion about the commission of offences by the petitioners upon
2026:KER:15991
sound judicial reasoning. The concurrent findings in the above regard
cannot be dislodged, in exercise of the revisional powers under Section
397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
6. As regards the sentence portion of the impugned judgments,
it is seen that the courts below have imposed only the minimum
punishment provided for the offence as per law. Having regard to the
nature and gravity of the offence involved, it cannot be said that the
aforesaid punishment is disproportionate to the nature of the offence
committed by the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners
submitted that the petitioners had already undergone imprisonment for a
certain period, and that the judgments rendered by the Trial Court as
well as the Appellate Court, have not made it clear that the aforesaid
period of imprisonment which they have undergone during pre-trial
stage, has to be set off. If the petitioners had undergone detention in
judicial custody for any period during the pre-trial stage, they are entitled
to set off for the aforesaid period of custody.
In the result, the revision petition stands dismissed, confirming the
conviction and sentence awarded by the courts below. However, it is
made clear that the Trial Court has to ascertain whether the petitioners
2026:KER:15991
had actually undergone imprisonment for any period during pre-trial
stage, and make it clear in the committal warrant that such period is
liable to be set off.
(Sd/-)
G. GIRISH, JUDGE
DST/23.02.26
