The Kerala High Court dismissed the State's criminal appeal against an acquittal for forest offences. Although noting procedural infirmities, the court held that the minimal loss of Rs.500 and the age of the incident precluded remand.
The criminal appeal was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU
THURSDAY, THE 19TH JULY 2007 / 28TH ASHADHA 1929
CRL.A.No. 948 of 2001(C)
------------------------------CC.148/1998 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS-II(FOREST OFFENCES),PUNALUR .
APPELLANT: COMPLAINANT
--------------
FOREST RANGE OFFICER, REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
RESPONDENTS: ACCUSED
------------------
1. THABODANAN PILLAI, S/O. PAPPU PILLAI, ANIL VILASOM, CHARIPARAMB, ETTIVA VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK.
2. KUMAR, S/O.SASIDHARAN PILLAI, SRIKANTH BHAVAN, ETTIVA VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK.
3. GANGADHARAN PILLAI, S/O. PANCHAN PILLAI, CHARIPARAMBIL BINU BHAVAN, ETTIVA VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK.
4. MANIYAN PILLAI, S/O.RAMAN PILLAI, CHARIPARAMB RAJANI VILASOM, ETTIVA VILLAGE, KOTTARAKKARA TALUK.
BY ADV. SRI.K.V.VINODKUMAR, SRI.S.RAJEEV BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/07/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
K.R.UDAYABHANU, J
------------------------------------Crl.A.No.948 of 2001
------------------------------------Dated this the 19th day of July, 2007
JUDGMENT
The State is the appellant and order challenged is the one in C.C.No.148/1998 with respect to the offence under Section 27(1)(d) (e)(iii) & (iv) of the Kerala Forest Act which ended in the acquittal of the accused. I find that the observation of the court below that no independent witnesses has been examined and Ext. P3 notification did not specifically mention about the bamboo plantation, appears not proper. All the same considering the fact that the loss caused to the Government is only Rs.500/- and that the incident is dated 25.2.1996, I find that it would not be appropriate to remit the matter to the court below.
The appeal is dismissed.
K.R.UDAYABHANU, JUDGE
csl
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should have remitted the case for independent verification of witnesses given the acquittal in the lower court.
Whether the loss caused amounting to Rs.500 warrants mitigation despite technical defects in the lower court proceedings.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
State
Thabodanan Pillai
Kumar
Gangadharan Pillai
Maniyan Pillai
K.R.Udayabhanu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
