Partly allowed

Sheikbabu v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Sept 2016CRL.A/37/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed the State's appeal against conviction but allowed connected appeals filed by the accused. The court held that non-compliance with the mandatory requirement of examining seized sandalwood by an authorized officer under Section 62-C of the Karnataka Forest Act vitiated the conviction.

What did the court decide?

Appeals by accused allowed; accused acquitted; fine refunded if paid; bail bonds cancelled.

Sheikbabu Vs State of Karnataka — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 07^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.359 OF 2010

¶7

CONNECTED WITH

¶8

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.37 OF 2010

¶9

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.102 OF 2010

¶10

IN CRL.A.No.359/2010

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

State of Karnataka By Nazarbad Police.

¶13

…APPELLANT

¶14

(By Shri S. Vishwamurthy, Government Pleader)

¶15

AND:

¶16

Syed Iqbal,

¶17

Son of Syed Ahamed,

¶18

45 years,

¶19

Bailukuppa,

¶20

Piriyapatna Taluk.

¶21

¶22

Sheikhbabu, Son of Sheikh Mohammed Yacoob, 42 years, Gousia Nagar, Mysore.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(By Shri R.D.Renukaradhya, Advocate for Shri P. Nataraju, Advocate)

¶25

¶26

This Criminal Appeal filed under Section 377 code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the State Public Prosecutor for the State praying to modify the order of sentence imposed dated 8.12.2009 passed by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge Mysore in S.C.No.73/2007 and etc;

¶27

IN CRL.A.No.37/2010

¶28

BETWEEN:

¶29

Sheikbabu, Aged about 45 years, Son of Sheik Mohammed Yakub, Ghousia Nagar, Mysore.

¶30

…APPELLANT

¶31

(By Shri R.D.Renukaradhya, Advocate for Shri P. Nataraju, Advocate)

¶32

AND:

¶33

State of Karnataka, By Nazarbad Police Station, Represented by

¶34

¶35

State Public Prosecutor, High Court Building, Bangalore.

¶36

…RESPONDENT

¶37

(By Shri S. Vishwamurthy, Government Pleader)

¶38

¶39

This Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the Advocate for the Appellant praying to set aside the judgment and order of conviction passed by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysore in S.C.No.73/2007 dated 8.12.2009 and etc;

¶40

IN CRL.A.No.102/2010

¶41

BETWEEN:

¶42

Syed Iqbal, Aged about 48 years, Son of Syed Ahmed, Bylukuppe, Periyapatna Taluk, Mysore.

¶43

…APPELLANT

¶44

(By Shri R.D.Renukaradhya, Advocate for Shri P. Nataraju, Advocate)

¶45

AND:

¶46

State of Karnataka, By Nazarbad Police Station, Represented by State Public Prosecutor, High Court Building, Bangalore.

¶47

¶48

…RESPONDENT

¶49

(By Shri S. Vishwamurthy, Government Pleader)

¶50

¶51

This Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the Advocate for the Appellant praying to set aside the judgment and order dated 8.12.2009 passed by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysore in S.C.No.73/2007 and etc;

¶52

These appeals having been heard and reserved on 02.09.2016 and coming on for pronouncement of orders this day, the Court delivered the following:-

¶53

JUDGMENT

¶54

These appeals are disposed of by this common judgment.

¶55

The appeal in Crl.A.359/2010 is filed by the State, in

¶56

the following background. It transpires that when PW-1 and his staff attached to the Nanjangud Police Station, Mysore, was on patrol duty at about 3-45 AM on 6-11-2006. They found that four persons were seen stealthily cutting a sandal wood tree in the compound of the Postal Training School on M.N. Road, Mysore. It is said that they were attacked by the said four persons with deadly weapons. However, when PW-1 is said to have opened fire with his service revolver, they are said to have

¶57

¶58

taken to their heels. But the police had managed to nab two of them, arrayed as accused no.1 and 2, the other two had escaped, but they were also named as the accused. The case was said to have been split up against accused no.1 and 2 who had stood trial and were ultimately convicted for an offence under Section 86 of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 (Hereinafter referred to as the ‘KF Act’, for brevity) and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-. It is that which is under challenge in the said appeal.

¶59

The connected appeals are filed by each of the accused, respectively, challenging the judgment on various grounds.

¶60

The State has sought to question the judgment on the ground that the court below having found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 86 of the KF Act, has failed to notice

¶61

that the minimum punishment prescribed is imprisonment for 5 years and hence it could not have imposed a lesser punishment.

¶62

¶63

On the other hand, the accused in the connected

¶64

appeals would contend that the judgment of the court below would have to be set aside on the sole ground that there was non-compliance with mandatory provisions of law in the case being prosecuted against them. In that, in any prosecution for an offence punishable under Section 86 of the KF Act and for contravention of Rules 154 and 165 of the Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969, it is necessary that the incriminating evidence, such as the sandal wood in the instant case, be examined by an Authorised officer, who is by notification authorised to do so in terms of Section 62-C of the KF Act.

¶65

In the instant case, the prosecution has failed to prove

¶66

that the seized billets were sandalwood billets. As the Investigating officer has not produced the notification issued by the Government to prove that the Range Forest Officer had been notified to exercise powers under Section 62-C of the KF Act. The learned Trial judge had overlooked this mandatory requirement.

¶67

¶68

The learned Government Advocate does not dispute

¶69

the position that there was no compliance with the above requirement in law.

¶70

Consequently, the appeal filed by the State in Crl.A.359/2010 is dismissed and the appeals in Crl.A.102/2010 and Crl.A.37/2010 are allowed. The appellant - accused are acquitted. The fine amount, if any paid, shall be refunded. The bail bonds stand cancelled.

¶71

Sd/- JUDGE

¶72

Sheikbabu v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sheikbabu v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr Laila M Iliyas Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Triumph Estate Pvt. Ltd. Vs Mr M Venkatesh Murthy

Mr.K.Nandakumar Vs Mr.Nagaraj

Prajwal Vs State of Karnataka

Sri S Jayashankar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri G R Venkateshwara Reddy Vs Karnataka Lokayuktha Police