Madras High Court
Selvamani vs State Represented By on 23 March, 2023
Crl.R.C(MD)No.127 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 23.03.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.R.C(MD)No.127 of 2017
1.Selvamani
2.Nesamani ...Petitioners/A1 & A2
Vs.
State represented by
The Forest Range Officer,
Boothapandi Forest Range,
Kanniyakumari District.
(O.R.160/999) ...Respondent
Prayer : This Criminal Revision has been filed under Section 397 r/w
401 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records in Crl.A.No.86
of 2008, dated 01.07.2016 on the file of the Mahila Court (Fast Track
Court), Nagercoil, confirming the judgment passed in C.C.No.159 of
2008 on the file of the Special Court (Forest Cases), Nagercoil, dated
30.05.2008 and set aside the same.
For Petitioners : Mr.R.Jegadeeswaran
For Respondent : Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi
Government Advocate (Crl.side)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
Crl.R.C(MD)No.127 of 2017
ORDER
The Petition has been filed to set-aside the order made in
Crl.A.No.86 of 2008, dated 01.07.2016 on the file of the Mahila Court
(Fast Track Court), Nagercoil, confirming the judgment passed in
C.C.No.159 of 2008 on the file of the Special Court (Forest Cases),
Nagercoil, dated 30.05.2008.
2.The case of the prosecution is that on 06.12.1999 at about
08.00 a.m., the petitioners without any permission carried Eetti trees
(Eetti Maram) on their head at Poigai Reserved Forest, Aralvaimozhi
Beat within the jurisdiction of Kulathuvizhai. When the respondent and
his team on surveillance of the said area, found that the petitioners were
carrying Eetti sticks and seized the trees from the petitioners. After
recording their statements, the respondent prepared a complaint and
after completion of investigation, filed a final report and the same was
taken cognizance by the trial Court. In order to prove the case, the
respondent had examined PW1 to PW5 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 and
also produced M.O.1. On the side of the petitioners, no one was
examined and no document was marked in order to disprove the charge
levelled as against them. The trial Court found that the petitioners were
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.127 of 2017
guilty for the offences under Section 21 (d)(e)(f) of Tamil Nadu Forest
Act, 1882 and Section 3 of Amendment Act 1, 1995 and sentenced them
to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a
fine of Rs.7,500/- each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for
a period of three months. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners
preferred an appeal and the same was also dismissed by the first
appellate Court by confirming the conviction and sentence. Hence, the
present revision.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that
even according to the case of the prosecution, the petitioners cut down
19 trees, in which, already 17 trees had been taken away from the
respondent. They hidden two trees of Eetti trees and when they were
taken from the hidden place and proceeded to their place, they were got
hold and filed a complaint. Further the respondent failed to produce
other 17 Eetti trees in order to prove their case and also to connect with
the trees, which were allegedly seized from the petitioners and the
whereabouts of these trees till not now. Therefore, it is clearly a put up
case as against the petitioners only for statistical purpose. He further
submitted that though the respondent charge sheeted that the petitioners
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.127 of 2017
were carrying Eetti trees in the reserved forest area, they failed to
produce any declaration or notification to identify to the effect that the
scene of occurrence is the reserved forest area. They also failed to
produce any material to show that the seized trees are Eetti trees.
Therefore, the entire conviction and sentence cannot be sustained as
against the petitioners and it is liable to be set aside.
4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side)
appearing for the respondent submitted that admittedly, both the
petitioners were found in possession of two Eetti trees. After seizure of
the Eetti trees, they recorded confession statement of the petitioners and
registered the case as against the petitioners. After completion of
investigation, they filed a final report. In order to prove the charge, they
had examined PW1 to PW5 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 and seized the
Eetti trees, which were marked as M.O.1. Therefore, both the Courts
found them guilty and sentenced them under Forest Act. Hence, it does
not warrant any interference by this Court and prayed for dismissal of
this petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.127 of 2017
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and
the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the
respondent.
6. The petitioners are arrayed as Accused Nos.1 and 2.
According to the respondent, both the petitioners/A1 & A2 were
carrying two Eetti trees on their head at Poigai Reserved Forest,
Aralvaimozhi Beat within the jurisdiction of Kulathuvizhai. Further, the
case of the prosecution is that already they cut down 19 trees, in which,
17 trees were taken from the forest and two trees were hidden by them.
When they were taken the trees and proceeded, they were got hold.
Further, the respondent failed to produce any document to show that 17
trees, which were already seized, were kept in the manner known to law
and they were also not compared with the present trees alledgedly
recovered from the petitioners. That apart, the respondent failed to
produce any notification or declaration to the effect that the scene of
occurrence is the reserved forest area. In order to attract the offence
under Section 21 (d), (e) and (f) of Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882, the
scene of crime should be reserved forest area. It is relevant to extract the
Section 21 (d), (e) and (f) of Tamil Nadu Forest Act, which reads as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.127 of 2017
follows:-
''21.Penalties for trespass or damage in
reserved forest and acts prohibited in such
forests. Any person who
'' (a) ......
(b) ......
(c) ......
(d) trespasses or pastures cattle, or
permits cattle to trespass;
(e) fells, girdles, marks, lops, tops, uproots
or burns any tree, or strips off the bark or leaves
from, or otherwise damages, the same;
(f) quarries stone, burns lime or charcoal,
or collects, subject to any manufacturing process, or
removes any forest produce......''
7.Admittedly, the prosecution did not produce any material
documents to show that the scene of occurrence is the reserved forest
area. Further, the respondent also failed to prove that the trees, which
were alledgedly carried by the petitioners, are Eetti trees by any analysis
and failed to examine any independent witnesses. In order to prove the
charges, PW1 to PW5 were examined, who are the officials witnesses
and as such the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioners
cannot be sustained and it is liable to be set aside.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.127 of 2017
8.Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case stands allowed.
23.03.2023
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes / No
vsd
ToT
1.Mahila Court (Fast Track Court),
Nagercoil.
2.The Special Court (Forest Cases),
Nagercoil.
3.The Forest Range Officer,
Boothapandi Forest Range,
Kanniyakumari District.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C(MD)No.127 of 2017
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
vsd
Crl.R.C(MD)No.127 of 2017
23.03.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
