[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Chandran vs State Of Kerala on 31 March, 2026
2026:KER:28439
Crl.R.P No.3458/2005
1
IN THE HIGH Court OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH
TUESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH 2026 / 10TH CHAITHRA, 1948
CRL.REV.PET NO. 3458 OF 2005
JUDGMENT DATED 31.10.2005 IN CRL.APPEAL NO.144/04 ON THE
FILES OF THE ADDITIONAL SESSION'S COURT, THODUPUZHA, AND
AGAINST CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 21.4.2004 IN
C.C.NO.550/97 BY THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF THE I CLASS,
ADIMALY.
REVISION PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/ACCUSED 1, 3 AND 4
1 CHANDRAN,
S/O. MALLAYYAN,
MACHIPLAVU GIRIJAN SETTLEMENT,
MANNAMKANDAM VILLAGE,
DEVICOLAM TALUK.
2 RAMACHANDRAN
S/O.KOCHURAMAN,
MACHIPLAVU GIRIJAN SETTLEMENT,
MANNAMKANDAM VILLAGE,
DEVIKULAM VILLAGE.
3 THAKAN
S/O.KOCHURAMAN
MACHIPLAVU GIRIJAN SETTLEMENT,
MANNAMKANDAN VILLAGE,
DEVIKULAM VILLAGE.
BY ADV SRI.K.K.CHANDRAN PILLAI (SR.)
RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM.
2026:KER:28439
Crl.R.P No.3458/2005
2
2 DEPUTY RANGER
MACHIPLAVU FOREST STATION.
ADV.SRI.SYAMANTHAK.B.S, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
(FOREST)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 27.03.2026, THE COURT ON 31.03.2026 PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:28439
Crl.R.P No.3458/2005
3
ORDER
The concurrent verdicts of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court,
Adimaly and the Additional Sessions Court, Thodupuzha in C.C
No.550/1997 and Crl.A No.144/2004 respectively, convicting and
sentencing the petitioners for the commission of offence under Section
27(1)(e)(iii) of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961 (hereafter referred as 'the
Act'), are under challenge in this revision petition.
2. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 , 3 and 4 in the aforesaid
case. The allegation against them is that they, along with accused
Nos.2 and 5, trespassed into the Malayattoor Reserve Forest on
06.06.1997, and attempted to cut and remove a fallen Akhil tree which
was lying there in that reserve forest.
3. In the trial before the learned Magistrate, the prosecution
examined three witnesses as PW1 to PW3, and marked three documents
as Exts.P1 to P3. Three material objects were identified as MO1 to
MO3. After the first round of trial, all the accused were found guilty of
the offence under Section 27(1)(e)(iii) and (iv) of the Kerala Forest Act
and convicted thereunder. They were sentenced to a composite
punishment of simple imprisonment for one year for both the above
2026:KER:28439
4
offences. Thereupon, all the accused went on appeal, challenging the
said verdict of the learned Magistrate. The Appellate Court came to the
finding that the composite punishment awarded for separate offences
was illegal and remanded the matter for fresh disposal to the Trial Court,
observing that minimum punishment provided under the Kerala Forest
Act was not awarded by the Trial Court. Thereafter, the Trial Court
again posted the case for hearing. By that time, the second accused
passed away. Though the fifth accused was reported to be no more, his
death certificate was not produced before the Trial Court. Accordingly,
the Trial Court split up the case against the 5th accused. After hearing
accused 1, 3 and 4 (the petitioners herein), the Trial Court found them
guilty of Section 27(1)(e)(iii) of the Act, and convicted them thereunder.
The petitioners were sentenced to simple imprisonment for one year for
the offence under Section 27(1)(e)(iii) of the Act. They were acquitted
of the offence under Section 27(1)(e)(iv) of the Act. Though the
petitioners challenged the aforesaid verdict in appeal, the learned
Additional Sessions Judge concurred with the findings of the learned
Magistrate, and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the above
2026:KER:28439
5
concurrent verdicts of the Courts below, the petitioners are here before
this Court with this revision petition.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners, and
the learned Government Pleader representing the Forest Department.
5. As already stated above, PW1 to PW3 are the witnesses
examined from the part of the prosecution, to establish the charge
levelled against the petitioners. Among the above witnesses, PW1 and
PW3 are Forest Guards, who claimed to have detected the offence and
arrested accused Nos.3, 4 and 5. However, there is absolutely nothing
on record pertaining to the aforesaid arrest said to have been made in
Reserve Forest, of the above accused, which include the petitioners 2
and 3 herein. No arrest memo, inspection memo or custody memo are
seen prepared in connection with the aforesaid arrest of the petitioners
2 and 3, and the 5th accused.
6. It is also pertinent to note that PW3 had been declared
hostile at the request of the prosecution, since he deposed before the
Trial Court that the accused were not found to be in possession of any
weapons at the time of detection of the offence. As far as PW2 is
concerned, he had not witnessed the incident involved in this case.
2026:KER:28439
6
PW2 is said to be the Forester, who is said to have certified the
correctness of Ext.P1 mahazar prepared by PW1 and his colleagues.
However, Ext.P1 mahazar does not bear any certification as stated by
PW2. When cross-examined on that point, he stated that there is no
certification in the original mahazar, and that it might be there in the
copy of the mahazar. Therefore, the aforesaid evidence adduced by
PW2 is of no use for the prosecution. Likewise, the evidence tendered
by PW3, who had been declared hostile to the prosecution, is also
fragile and untrustworthy.
7. It is pertinent to note that, the Deputy Range Officer, who
had conducted the investigation in this case and laid the chargesheet
before the Court, had not been examined as a witness from the part of
the prosecution. No explanation has been offered by the prosecution
for the non-examination of the above witness. It is of no doubt that the
omission on the part of the prosecution to examine the Investigating
Officer as a witness, has rendered serious prejudice to the petitioners,
since they were deprived of the opportunity to challenge the substantial
flaws in the investigation, especially with regard to the arrest of the
petitioners.
2026:KER:28439
7
8. Another important aspect to be noted in this case is that
Ext.P3, which is said to be the Gazette notification as required under
Section 19 of the Act, to show that the place of occurrence come under
reserve forest, is hopelessly devoid of the requisite particulars, to
consider it as a Gazette notification or a certified copy of the same. The
printed particulars in Ext.P3 include a schedule with a heading as
'Notification under Section 18 of Regulation II of 1068' with the name
'Sangara Soobayer, Dewan, Huzur Cutcherry, Trivandrum' in the bottom
portion. Though a signature is seen affixed with the seal of the Chief
Conservator of Forest, beneath the above particulars on the bottom
portion of that document, there is absolutely nothing stated thereunder
that it is the certified copy of the required Gazette notification to show
that the place of occurrence in this case came under reserve forest. The
aforesaid document is not proved through the official, whose signature
is seen affixed with the seal of the Chief Conservator of Forest, or any
other officer authorised by the said authority, who is competent to speak
about the contents of that document. Thus, it has to be stated that the
prosecution has failed to bring on record the necessary document to
show that the offence involved in this case took place inside the reserve
2026:KER:28439
8
forest. Neither the Trial Court nor the Appellate Court took into account
the aforesaid gross anomalies, which are capable of cutting the root of
the entire prosecution case. That being so, it is highly necessary that
the concurrent verdicts of the Courts below are to be set aside in
exercise of the revisional powers of this Court.
In the result, the revision petition stands allowed as follows:
(i) The judgments rendered by the Courts below, convicting and
sentencing the petitioners for the commission of offence under
Section 27(1)(e)(iii) of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961, are hereby
set aside.
(ii) The petitioners/accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 are acquitted of the
aforesaid offence.
(iii) Their bail bonds stand cancelled and they are set at liberty.
(sd/-)
G. GIRISH, JUDGE
jsr
