Allowed

Gangadhara v. State by Range Forest Officer

Karnataka HC4 Sept 2024CRL.A/906/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal against conviction and sentence for offences under the Karnataka Forest Act. The court set aside the lower court's judgment because the prosecution failed to produce a requisition certificate under Section 62-C issued by a qualified officer to identify the sandalwood billets.

What did the court decide?

The judgment and order convicting the appellant were set aside. The bail bond was cancelled and any deposited fine was to be refunded.

Gangadhara Vs State by Range Forest Officer — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:36424 CRL.A No. 906 of 2012

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 906 OF 2012

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

GANGADHARA S/O LATE THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS BASAVANAHALLI, BEHIND SILEKHA THEATURE, KADUR ROAD, CHIKKAMAGALORE.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. B. M. MOHAN KUMAR., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by YAMUNA K L Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

STATE BY RANGE FOREST OFFICER, ALUR, REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT, BANGALORE. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RANGASWAMY. R., HCGP)

¶14

THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.374(2) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 13/7/2012 PASSED IN S.C. No.176/2010 BY THE ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S.24 & 86 OF KARNATAKA FOREST ACT.

¶15

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:36424 CRL.A No. 906 of 2012

¶18

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶19

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶20

This appeal is preferred by the accused, assailing the judgment and order dated 13.07.2012 passed by the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge at Hassan in S.C.No.176/2010, convicting him for the offence punishable under Section 24 and 86 of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963.

¶21

The learned Sessions Judge has sentenced the accused to undergo Simple Imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month, for the offence punishable under Section 24 of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963.

¶22

The accused is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one year eight months, for the offence punishable under Section 86 of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963.

¶23

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:36424 CRL.A No. 906 of 2012

¶24

Heard both the sides and perused the material on record.

¶25

Briefly stated, prosecution has alleged that on 15.12.2011, accused has illegally cut a sandalwood tree in the reserve forest of Nakalagodu, near Konanakunte, using saw-blade and converted it into 8 billets and thereby committed the charged offences.

¶26

PW.1 and his staff while on patrolling, heard someone cutting the tree as such they chased and apprehended the accused. Eight sandalwood billets and sandalwood chips weighing 28.5 Kgs and two

¶27

saw-blades were seized in the presence of panchas under a mahazar-Ex.P1.

¶28

As per the valuation certificate submitted by PW.4-Range Forest Officer, eight sandalwood billets weighing about 28.5 Kgs was valued at Rs.1,425/-.

¶29

The complainant is examined as PW.1. He was working as Forester at Aluru Forest Range. His evidence discloses that he along with the Forest guard and forest watchman, while on patrolling duty heard the sound of

¶30

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:36424 CRL.A No. 906 of 2012

¶31

cutting the tree and when they went to the spot, they saw the accused, who tried to run away. They surrounded and apprehended him. On enquiry, he confessed to have cut the sandalwood tree. Eight sandalwood billets and sandalwood chips marked as Mos.3 to 11 and two saw-blades marked as MOs.1 and 2 were seized, under a mahazar, Ex.P1 in the presence of panchas. PW.1 has stated that he registered a case and sent the FIR-Ex.P2 to Jurisdictional Court.

¶32

PWs.2 and 3 are the panch witnesses to the Mahazar-Ex.P1. PW.4 is the Range Forest Officer, who issued Ex.P3, valuation report and on completion of investigation, filed the charge sheet.

¶33

According to PW.1 he along with the forest guard one Dinesh and forest watchman one Komalesh, while on patrolling duty, noticed the accused cutting the sandal wood tree and they surrounded and apprehended him.

¶34

The forest guard and forest watchman have not tendered their evidence before the Court. Hence, the

¶35

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:36424 CRL.A No. 906 of 2012

¶36

prosecution is relying on the evidence of PW.1 and the evidence of panch witnesses namely PW.2 and PW.3 to establish the guilt of the accused.

¶37

A perusal of the evidence of PW.2 shows that after the mahazar was prepared, he has signed the said mahazar. He has stated that the forest officers had brought MOs.1 to 11 near the road from the spot and there were about 25 villagers gathered and by the time they brought the said articles, they had already prepared the mahazar.

¶38

PW.2 has not at all stated the presence of another mahazar witnesses i.e., PW.3. Further according to the PW.3, except the forest officials no one was present at the time of preparing the mahazar. He has not at all stated the presence of PW.2 as well as the villagers gathered at the spot.

¶39

Except the evidence of PW.1 there is no other evidence to show that the accused was found cutting the sandalwood tree in the reserved forest and he tried to run away after seeing the forest officials. Both the panchas

¶40

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:36424 CRL.A No. 906 of 2012

¶41

have admitted their acquaintance with the forest officials. There is discrepancy in their evidence. The evidence of panch witnesses does not inspire the confidence of the Court.

¶42

Learned counsel for appellant has contended that there is no certificate issued in this case under Section 62-C of the Karnataka Forest Act, to show that the seized billets are sandal wood billets . He contended that even if there is any certificate issued under Section 62-C, the said certificate has to be issued by an Authorized person who has undergone training. He has relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of STATE Of

¶43

KARNATAKA V/s. PRAKASH AND OTEHRS reported in (2019) 14 SCC 229.

¶44

In the above decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that although the seized goods of forest produce is showed and proved by the prosecution as sandalwood by the examining experts, the course adopted for the same was not in consonance with the provisions of the Section 62-C of the Act.

¶45

¶46

NC: 2024:KHC:36424 CRL.A No. 906 of 2012

¶47

The Apex Court noticed that the prosecution could not produce any evidence to show that the Range Forest Officer concerned who issued the certificate was qualified to do the same as prescribed under the provisions of Section 62-C of the Act which makes it mandatory that the officer concern should have been authorized by the Government and should have received training for examining the forest produce.

¶48

In the case on hand no such certificate has been produced and marked by the prosecution. Ex.P3 is only a valuation report issued by PW.4. He has not at all stated having received any training for examining the forest produced, nevertheless, there is no certificate issued by him.

¶49

For the aforesaid reasons, it cannot be said that the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused for the offence for which he has been convicted by the Trial Court. Appeal deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the following:

¶50

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:36424 CRL.A No. 906 of 2012

¶51

ORDER

¶52

i) Appeal is allowed .

¶53

ii) Judgment and order dated 13.07.2012 passed

¶54

by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge at Hassan in S.C.No.176/2010, convicting and sentencing the

¶55

accused/appellant for the offences punishable under Section 24 and 86 of the Karnataka Forest Act is hereby set aside.

¶56

iii) The bail bond stands cancelled.

¶57

iv) If any fine amount has been deposited the

¶58

same shall be refunded to the appellant.

¶59

Sd/(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE

¶60

LDC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26

Gangadhara v. State by Range Forest Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gangadhara v. State by Range Forest Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Janardhan P Vs State of Karnataka

Sudhakar @ Sudha Vs the State of Karnataka

Sonnegowda Vs the State of Karnataka

Pillan Jinappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Raghava M Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Rudrappa Vs State of Karnataka