Madras High Court
Kamaraj vs The State Represented By on 21 June, 2023
Crl.A(MD)Nos.464, 465 and 480 of 2016
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Date : 21.06.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.A.(MD)Nos.464, 465 and 480 of 2016
Kamaraj ... Appellant/
Accused No.1 in Crl.A(MD)No.464 of 2016
Parameswaran ... Appellant/
Accused No.2 in Crl.A(MD)No.465 of 2016
1.Sadagoban
2.Chinnaraj
3.Palaniswamy ... Appellants/
Accused Nos.3 to 5 in Crl.A(MD)No.480 of 2016
vs.
The State represented by,
The Inspector of Police,
Mathoor Police Station,
Pudukkottai District.
(Crime No.146 of 2010). ... Respondent/
Complainant in all Crl.As'
COMMON PRAYER : Criminal Appeals filed under Section 374(2) of
Cr.P.C., to call for the records pertaining to the order passed in
S.C.No.63 of 2013, dated 17.11.2016, on the file of the learned
Additional District and Sessions Judge/Presiding Officer, Special
Court for EC and NDPS Act Cases, Pudukkottai and set aside the
same.
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A(MD)Nos.464, 465 and 480 of 2016
In Crl.A(MD)No.464 of 2016:-
For Appellant : Mr.B.Jameel Arasu
For Respondent : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
In Crl.A(MD)No.465 of 2016:-
For Appellant : Mr.P.Ganapathi Subramanian
For Respondent : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
In Crl.A(MD)No.480 of 2016:-
For Appellants : Mr.P.Ganapathi Subramanian
For Respondent : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal has been preferred as against the
Judgment and conviction made in S.C.No.63 of 2013, dated
17.11.2016, on the file of the learned Additional District and
Sessions Judge/Presiding Officer, Special Court for EC and NDPS Act
Cases, Pudukkottai.
2.All the revisions, arising out of the single trial, were
taken up together and disposed of by this common order.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A(MD)Nos.464, 465 and 480 of 2016
3.The case of the prosecution is that on 19.11.2010 at
about 05.30 p.m., the defacto complainant received information that
the accused were cutting Velikaruvai trees found in the poramboke
land comprised in Survey No.287 situated at Rasapatti Kulathukari
Kadaiyakudi Kulam. On the said information, the defacto
complainant and his subordinate officers went to the place of
occurrence and they found two lorries bearing Registration
Nos.TN-47-A-7799 and TN-47-B-9427 were loaded with Velikaruvai
trees by the accused persons. When it was questioned by the
defacto complainant, the accused persons abused them with filthy
language and also threatened them with dire consequences.
4.Based on the said complaint, the respondent
registered the F.I.R in Crime No.146 of 2010 for the offences under
Sections 147, 294(b), 341, 353, 506(ii) and 379 of I.P.C and
Section 3 of TNPPDL Act r/w 34 of I.P.C. After completion of the
investigation, the respondent filed a final report and the same has
been taken cognizance by the trial Court in S.C.No.63 of 2013 on
the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions
Judge/Presiding Officer, Special Court for EC and NDPS Act Cases,
Pudukkottai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A(MD)Nos.464, 465 and 480 of 2016
5.On the side of the prosecution, they had examined
P.W.1 to P.W.7 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.9 and the prosecution has
also marked M.O.1 to M.O.3 and on the side of the accused, no one
was examined and no documents were marked.
6.On perusal of both oral and documentary evidence,
the trial Court acquitted all the accused for the offences under
Sections 341, 294(b) and 506(ii) of I.P.C and Section 3 of the
TNPPDL Act r/w 34 of I.P.C and convicted all the accused for the
offences under Sections 147, 353, 379 and 147 of I.P.C and they
were sentenced to undergo six months Rigorous Imprisonment each
for the offence punishable under Section 147 of I.P.C and they were
sentenced to undergo six months Rigorous Imprisonment each for
the offence punishable under Section 353 of I.P.C and they were
sentenced to undergo three years Rigorous Imprisonment each and
to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in default to undergo three
months Simple Imprisonment for the offence punishable under
Section 379 of I.P.C. The sentences shall run concurrently.
Aggrieved by the same, the present Criminal Appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A(MD)Nos.464, 465 and 480 of 2016
7.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant in
Crl.A(MD)No.464 of 2016 would submit that the first accused died
while pending the appeal. Therefore, all the charges as against the
Accused No.1/deceased are abated.
8.The learned counsels appearing for the appellants in
Crl.A(MD)Nos.465 and 480 of 2016 would submit that the
prosecution failed to examine any independent witnesses in order to
prove the charges. All are official witnesses and though there was
general public, no one was examined by the prosecution to
corroborate the evidence of P.W.1. In fact, Velikaruvai Trees were
situated in the patta land and the prosecution failed to prove that
the trees were cut down from the land belonged to the Government.
That apart, now the Honourable Division Bench of this Court
directed the Government to remove all the Velikaruvai Trees all over
Tamil Nadu. Therefore, unnecessarily, they are facing conviction for
non-committing any offence.
9.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor
appearing for the respondent would submit that P.W.1 to P.W.7
categorically deposed that all the accused persons had cut down the
trees and about to move after loading into those lorries they were
caught hold and lorries were seized along with the wood. Therefore,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A(MD)Nos.464, 465 and 480 of 2016
the prosecution categorically proved its case and the same does not
require any interference by this Court.
10.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side
and perused the materials available on record.
11.On perusal of the records revealed that all the
witnesses are official witnesses and no independent witness was
examined by the prosecution in support of the case of the
prosecution. Even according to P.W.1, on information, he along with
other officials went to the place of crime. They had seen that the
accused persons already had loaded the Timber and were about to
move. At that juncture, they had caught hold of them. Thereafter,
they abused them with filthy language and also prevented them to
discharge their official duty. Further, the prosecution also failed to
prove that the trees were cut down from the poramboke land
comprised in Survey No.287 situated at Rasapatti Kulathukarai
Kadaiyakudi Kulam. According to the prosecution case, Accused Nos.
2 and 3 escaped, immediately after they caught hold of the lorries.
They are drivers, and the officials only had driven the lorries to their
office. On perusal of the records also revealed that where the
alleged trees were cut down by the accused was not proved by the
prosecution. The prosecution also failed to prove the specific overt
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A(MD)Nos.464, 465 and 480 of 2016
act as against the accused persons to show who cut the trees and
whose instructions they cut the trees. According to the case of the
prosecution, the first accused was the timber merchant and now, he
died. The other accused persons are drivers and coolies. Therefore,
there is no point in convicting Accused Nos.2 to 5. That apart, the
prosecution failed to examine any independent witness to
corroborate the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 and in toto the
prosecution miserably failed to prove its case beyond any doubt.
Hence, the entire conviction and sentence cannot be sustained as
against Accused Nos.2 to 5 and it is liable to be set aside.
12.The appellant/Accused No.1 in Crl.A(MD)No.464 of
2016 died while pending the appeal, therefore, all the charges as
against the deceased Accused No.1 are abated and Crl.A(MD)No.
464 of 2016 is dismissed as abated.
13.Accordingly, the Judgment made in S.C.No.63 of
2013, dated 17.11.2016, on the file of the learned Additional
District and Sessions Judge/Presiding Officer, Special Court for EC
and NDPS Act Cases, Pudukkottai, is set aside and Crl.A(MD)Nos.
465 and 480 of 2016 are allowed. Accused Nos.2 to 5 are acquitted.
Bail bond if any executed by Accused Nos.2 to 5 shall stand
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A(MD)Nos.464, 465 and 480 of 2016
cancelled and a fine amount if paid is ordered to be refunded to
Accused Nos.2 to 5 forthwith.
21.06.2023
NCC : Yes/No
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes
ps
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A(MD)Nos.464, 465 and 480 of 2016
To
1.The Presiding Officer,
Additional District and Sessions Court,
Special Court for EC and NDPS Act Cases,
Pudukkottai.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Mathoor Police Station,
Pudukkottai District.
3.The Section Officer,
VR Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A(MD)Nos.464, 465 and 480 of 2016
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN , J.
ps
Crl.A.(MD)Nos.464, 465 and 480 of 2016
21.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
