Madras High Court
Manivannan vs The State Rep By on 19 August, 2024
Author: M.Nirmal Kumar
Bench: M.Nirmal Kumar
Crl.R.C.No.1324 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 19.08.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Crl.R.C.No.1324 of 2024
and
Crl.M.P.No.11384 of 2024
1.Manivannan
2.Sundaram
3.Mahadevan
4.Venkatesan ... Petitioners
Vs.
The State Rep by
The Forest Range Officer,
Arni Range Officer,
Arni – 632 301,
Tiruvannamalai District.
S.T.O.R.No.3/2013 ... Respondent
Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Sections 438 and 442 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, praying to set aside the judgment in
C.A.No.8 of 2020 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge,
Thiruvannamalai by judgment dated 14.07.2022 by confirming the
conviction and sentence passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Cheyyar,
Thiruvannamalai District in C.C.No.105 of 2014 by judgment dated
09.12.2019 to undergo simple imprisonment for two years each for offence
under Section 21(d)(e)(f), 56 of Tamil Nadu Forest Act and pay fine of
Rs.7,500/- in default, undergo 6 months simple imprisonment and set aside
the same.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/7
Crl.R.C.No.1324 of 2024
For Petitioners : Mr.S.Sarath Chandran
For Respondent : Mr.A.Damodaran
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
This petition has been filed seeking to set aside the judgment in
Crl.A.No.8 of 2020 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge,
Thiruvannamalai dated 14.07.2022, confirming the conviction and sentence
passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Cheyyar, Thiruvannamalai District
in C.C.No.105 of 2014 dated 09.12.2019.
2.The petitioners/accused in C.C.No.105 of 2014 were convicted by
the learned Judicial Magistrate, Cheyyar by judgment dated 09.12.2019 and
sentenced to undergo two years simple imprisonment each for offence under
Section 21(d)(e)(f), 56 of Tamil Nadu Forest Act and to pay a fine of
Rs.7,500/- each, in default, to undergo 6 months simple imprisonment. For
offences under Sections 35 and 36 of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, the accused
were sentenced to undergo one month simple imprisonment. They were
acquitted for offence under Sections 36-A and 36-E of the Tamil Nadu
Forest Act.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3.The case projected against the petitioner is that the respondent,
namely, the Forest Range Officer, Arani submitted Form-A before the
learned Judicial Magistrate on 10.12.2013 informing that at about 4.30 a.m.,
authorised officials were on duty and keeping vigil to guard Red Sanders in
the area of Pullavakkam Reserve Forest. While they were proceeding to
Narikuravar colony, they noticed some persons have taken some timber on
their head and they were surrounded by the authorised team, on inspection, it
was found to be Red Sanders, which is a prohibited item. Hence, a case was
registered.
4.During trial, PW1 to PW5 examined and Exs.P1 to P9 marked and
M.O.1 to M.O.13 marked. On conclusion of trial, the petitioners were
convicted as stated above.
5.The contention of the learned counsel for petitioners is that
originally, six accused in this case. A6 absconded and the case got split up.
The case against the petitioners and A3 proceeded before the trial Court.
During trial, A3 passed away and the petitioners convicted, against the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
conviction, appeal filed before the learned Principal Sessions Judge,
Tiruvannamalai in Crl.A.No.8 of 2020. The Appellate Court received the
appeal on 06.01.2020 and the same was taken on file on 13.02.2020 and
posted for hearing on 10.03.2020. On 14.07.2022, the appeal was dismissed
for default for the reason that process not paid, despite sufficient opportunity
given. The learned counsel submitted that after dismissal of the appeal, now
the respondent with the aid of police exerting pressure and using force to
apprehend the petitioners. The petitioners' appeal got dismissed on technical
grounds and not on merits. Hence, prayed to set aside the judgment dated
14.07.2022.
6.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that petitioners
are only coolies. They were employed by A3, now A3 passed away.
Thereafter, the petitioners not shown interest in pursuing the appeal. The
appeal was dismissed not on merits but on technical grounds. He fairly
submitted that the petitioners may be given a chance and the appeal can be
decided on merits.
7.It is seen that the appeal got dismissed for non payment of process
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
fee on technical grounds and not on merits. Finding that the appeal being a
statutory right and the petitioners to be given an opportunity to putforth their
grounds, the case to be decided on its own merits, this Court set asides the
impugned order dated 14.07.2022 passed by the learned Principal Sessions
Judge, Tiruvannamalai and the appeal in Crl.A.No.8 of 2020 is restored on
the file of Principal Sessions Court, Tiruvannamalai.
8.The petitioners are directed to appear before the Appellate Court,
pursue the appeal without delay, any coercive measures taken after dismissal
of the appeal to be pursued, the same is set aside.
9.Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed. Consequently,
connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
19.08.2024
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
rsi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
rsi
To
1.The Forest Range Officer,
Arni Range Officer,
Arni – 632 301,
Tiruvannamalai District.
2.The Principal Sessions Judge,
Tiruvannamalai.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
and
19.08.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
