Obalaiah Vs State by C N Halli Police

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 13.03.2013 PASSED BY THE P.O., F.T.C., TIPTUR IN S.C.NO.218/2012 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 379 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SEC.86 AND 87 OF KARNATAKA FOREST ACT AND ETC.

¶16

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

¶17

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:49567 CRL.A No. 760 of 2013

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶22

Appellant-accused No.1 before the trial Court has preferred appeal against the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 13^th March, 2013 passed in SC No.218 of 2012 by the Fast Track Court at Tiptur.

¶23

Factual matrix of the prosecution case are that on the intervening night of 18/19^th September, 2010 at about 2.00 am in the land of CW5-Srikantaiah at Jodikallenahalli, accused 1 and 2, with a common intention, intending to take dishonestly the sandalwood from the lands, cut and uprooted the sandalwood tree belonging to government from the said lands without the consent of government and without any license from Government. On 19^th September 2010, at about 9.00 am, when PW5 and his staff were on patrolling duty at Matighatta Gate, in front of petrol bunk at Kuppur Road in Chikkanyakanahalli, accused 1 and 2 were transporting four sandalwood billets totally weighing 11.95 kg worth about Rs.1,000/- in a plastic bag and thereby have committed the offences punishable under section 379 of Indian Penal Code read with sections 86 and 87 of Karnataka Forest Act. This led

¶24

3 -

¶25

NC: 2025:KHC:49567 CRL.A No. 760 of 2013

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

to registration of first information report and investigation. After receipt of charge-sheet, the trial court committed the case to the court of Session. The sessions court after securing the accused, framed charges for the aforesaid offences. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined five witnesses as PW1 to 5 and got marked four documents as per Exhibits P1 to P4 and six materials as MOs1 to 6. The statement of the accused under section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. The accused have totally denied the evidence prosecution witnesses. The trial Court, after hearing the arguments, convicted accused 1 and 2 for the offences punishable under sections 86 and 87 of the Karnataka Forest Act and section 379 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order in sentence passed by the trial court, accused No.1 has preferred this appeal.

¶28

Smt. Shruti S, learned advocate appearing for Sri Vinaykeerti M, would contend that the independent witnesses PWs1 and 2 have not supported the case of the prosecution. Except the evidence of police witness PW3-Range Forest Officer, there is no evidence to prove the seizure of sandalwood

¶29

4 -

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:49567 CRL.A No. 760 of 2013

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

billets. Prosecution has not produced any revenue records to show that the alleged spot where sandalwood trees were grown, belong to PW2. The certificate Exhibit P3 issued by PW3 is not in accordance with law and therefore, there is noncompliance of section 62C of the Karnataka Forest Act. Hence, in the absence of compliance of statutory provisions, the conviction of the accused No.1 for offences under aforestated sections cannot be sustained. She further submit that this court in criminal appeal No.501 of 2013 disposed of on 19^th August, 2024 has already acquitted accused No.2. She has also produced the copy of the judgment. On all these grounds sought to allow this appeal.

¶33

As against this, Shri B Lakshman, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-state, supports the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the trial court and sought for dismissal of the appeal.

¶34

Having heard the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, and on perusal of the materials placed before me, the following point would arise for my consideration:

¶35

5 -

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:49567 CRL.A No. 760 of 2013

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

Whether the trial court has committed an error in

¶39

convicting the accused for commission of offence punishable under section 3 79,34 of IPC and sections 86 and 87 of Karnataka Forest Act?

¶40

I have examined the materials place before the

¶41

court and also gone through the judgment passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal No.501 of 2013 decided on 19^th August 2024 which pertains to accused No.2. The co-ordinate Bench of this court has elaborately discussed the materials placed on record and allowed the appeal. It is submitted by the learned High Court Government Pleader that the State has not preferred any appeal against this judgment. Since this court has already acquitted accused No.2 for similar offences, the present applicant is also entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, I answer point that arose for consideration in the affirmative. In the result, I proceed to pass following:

¶42

O R D E R

¶43

i. Appeal allowed;

¶44

6 -

¶45

NC: 2025:KHC:49567 CRL.A No. 760 of 2013

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

ii. The judgment of conviction and order in sentence dated 13^th March, 2013, passed in SC No.218 of 2012 by the Fast Track Court, Tiptur is set aside;

¶48

iii. The appellant-accused No.1 is acquitted of the offences under sections 86 and 87 of Karnataka Forest Act and section 379 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code;

¶49

iv. The bail bond executed by accused No.1 and his surety, stands cancelled;

¶50

v. The registry to send copy of this judgment along with the trial court records to the concerned court.

¶51

Sd/(G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE

¶52

LNN

¶53

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38

Obalaiah v. State by C N Halli Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Obalaiah v. State by C N Halli Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Santhosh P L Vs State of Karnataka by

Shri Purnachandra Thejaswi S Vs Dr a N Manjunath

Sri T Prakash Vs Smt Drakshayeni

Athuni @ Nabi Sab Vs the State of Karnataka

Appayyanna Since Dead by His Lrs Naveen Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Prakashchand Vs M/S R K Apparels Ventures (P) Ltd.