[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Thomas vs State Of Kerala on 8 January, 2026
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH
THURSDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 18TH POUSHA, 1947
CRL.REV.PET NO. 1366 OF 2005
JUDGMENT DATED 04.05.2005 IN Crl.A NO.90 OF 2000 OF
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT (ADHOC)I, PATHANAMTHITTA
JUDGMENT DATED 31.03.2000 IN CC NO.385 OF 1995 OF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II,PATHANAMTHITTA
REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NO.1&2:
1 THOMAS
S/O ETTICHERIYA, CHEDIYATHU VEEDU, MANNIRA,
THANNITHODU VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK.
2 VISWAMBARAN, S/O.BHASKARAN
MANNIRAYIL MARUTHIVILA VEEDU, THANNITHODU VILLAGE,
KOZHENCHERRY TALUK.
BY ADV SRI.JOSEPH GEORGE
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & STATE:
STATE OF KERALA
DEPUTY RANGER, KOKKOTHODU FOREST STATION,
NADUVATHUMOOZHI RANGE, BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
SRI ARAVIND V. MATHEW, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(FOREST)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 08.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:1061
Crl.R.P No.1366 of 2005
2
ORDER
The concurrent verdicts of the Judicial First Class Magistrate
Court-II, Pathanamthitta and the Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc)-I,
Pathanamthitta, convicting and sentencing the petitioners for the
commission of offences under Section 27(1)(g) and Section 2(c) of the
Kerala Forest Act, are under challenge in this revision.
2. The prosecution case is that on 24.07.1994, the petitioners
were found to have been removing timber from the reserved forest at
Naduvathumoozhi range in Kokkathode forest station limit. According to
the prosecution, the aforesaid timber related to a teak tree, cut and
removed from a place at a distance of about 20 metres from the place
where the petitioners were attempting to remove the same.
3. Before the learned Magistrate, 5 witnesses were examined
from the part of the prosecution as PW1 to PW5, and 3 documents were
marked as Exts. P1 to P3. Relying on the aforesaid evidence, the learned
Magistrate found the petitioners guilty of commission of the aforesaid
offences and sentenced them to Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and
2026:KER:1061
3
fine Rs.1000/- each. Though the petitioners challenged the aforesaid
verdict in appeal, the Appellate Court 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.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned
Public Prosecutor representing the Forest Department.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that the
entire prosecution launched against the petitioners is prima facie vitiated
since there is no such offence as stated in the prosecution records in the
statute book. It is pointed out that the offence under Section 27(1)(g) of
the Kerala Forest Act is not there in the statute book, and that the courts
below went wrong in convicting the petitioners for the commission of such
an offence. It is also pointed out that Section 2(c) mentioned in the
prosecution records relates to the definition of Forest Officer, and that it
will not constitute a substantial offence. There is substance in the
aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners. The
relevant Act which was in force at the time of commission of the offence
2026:KER:1061
involved in this case is the Kerala Forest Act, 1961 as amended by Act 2
of 1993 published in the Kerala Gazette dated 27.02.1993. As per the
above enactment, there are only clauses from (a) to (e) for the Section
incorporated as Section 27(1). Thus, it appears to be strange and
mysterious that the Investigating Agency quoted Section 27(1)(g) as the
substantial offence alleged against the petitioners, and the courts below
relied on the above records and convicted the petitioners for the
commission of such an offence which is not there in the statute book.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners further pointed out
that Ext.P3 notification relied on by the prosecution is not the notification
required under Section 19 of the Kerala Forest Act. As per Section 19 of
the Kerala Forest Act, 1961, Government may publish notification in the
Gazette specifying the limits of the forest which it is intended to reserve
and declaring the same to be reserved from a date to be fixed by such
notification. Obviously, the aforesaid notification can only be one
published after the enactment of Kerala Forest Act, 1961. In the
alternative, the Government will have to publish a notification reviving any
earlier notification prescribing the limits of reserve forest. As far as the
present case is concerned, Ext.P3 document relied on by the prosecution
2026:KER:1061
is a copy of notification published on 9th February 1897, which is attested
by the Chief Conservator of Forest. It is not possible to say that Ext.P3 is
the notification as required under Section 19 of the Kerala Forest Act,
1961. Therefore, the challenge raised by the petitioners against the
sustainability of the prosecution launched against them for want of
requisite notification, is also sustainable.
7. It appears that the courts below failed to take note of the
above serious anomalies in the prosecution initiated against the
petitioners. Needless to say that the conviction and sentence awarded by
the courts below upon the petitioners, are vitiated due to the above
infraction of law. Therefore, the prayer of the petitioners to set aside the
impugned judgments of the courts below deserves to be allowed.
In the result, the revision stands allowed as follows:
1) The judgments rendered by the Judicial First Class
Magistrate Court II, Pathanamthitta, on 31.03.2000 in CC
No.385/1995, and the Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc)-I,
Pathanamthitta, on 04.05.2005 in Crl.Appeal No.90/2000, are
hereby set aside.
2) The petitioners/accused are found not guilty of the
2026:KER:1061
offences alleged against them in the aforesaid prosecution and
they are acquitted thereunder.
3) The bail bonds executed by the petitioners stand
cancelled and they are set at liberty.
Sd/-
G.GIRISH
JUDGE
IAP
