Dismissed

State of Kerala v. Raveendran

Kerala HC19 Feb 2016CRL.A/1986/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Criminal Appeal No.1986 of 2004, the Kerala High Court dismissed the State's appeal against an acquittal. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove that the scene of the alleged offence was a reserved forest notified under Sec.19 of the Kerala Forest Act, citing A.M. Antony v. Forest Range Officer. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Appeal is dismissed.

State of Kerala Vs Raveendran — Property and Title | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/30TH MAGHA, 1937

¶5

CRL.A.NO. 1986 OF 2004 (C)

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CC NO.176/1996 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT-II(FOREST OFFENCES),PUNALUR DATED 31-01-1998

¶7

APPELLANT(S)/COMPLAINANT:

¶8

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶9

BY SPECIAL GOVERNMENT PLEADER (FOREST) SRI. M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/ACCUSED:

¶11

1. RAVEENDRAN, S/O PACHEN KANI, PRADEEPVILASOM VEEDU, KOCHADAPPUPARA KANI SETTLEMENT PANGOD VILLAGE, NEDUMANGAD TALUK.

¶12

2. VIJAYAN KANI S/O. PACHEN KANI KOCHADAPPUPARA KANI SETTLEMENT,

¶13

PANGOD VILLAGE, NUDUMANGAD TALUK.

¶14

3. SUNDARESAN KANI S/O. KUNJAN KANI, KOCHADAPPUPARA KANI SETTLEMENT, PANGOD VILLAGE, NEDUMANGAD TALUK.

¶15

4. MADHU, S/O. AMMUKUTTY, ROADRIKATHU VEEDU, MUNDENPALAM,

¶16

PERINGAMALA VILLAGE.

¶17

BY ADV. SMT.K.N.RAJANI

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

¶20

P.D. RAJAN, J.

¶21

Crl. Appeal No.1986 of 2004

¶22

Dated this the 19^th day of February, 2016

¶23

J U D G M E N T

¶24

This appeal is preferred by the State of Kerala

¶25

against the judgment of acquittal in C.C. No.176 of 1996 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate II, Punalur under Sec.27(1)(e) III & IV of the Kerala Forest Act. The charge against the accused is that on 14.11.1993 and three months prior to that date, accused 1 to 4 trespassed into the 1960 Anjili Plantation in Kochadappupara within the Vamanapuram Reserve Forest, illegally cut down an Anjili tree and attempted to remove it from the reserve forest and thereby sustained loss of Rs.18,500/- to the Government of Kerala. Hence, the Range Officer, Palode Forest Range, filed the above complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Punalur under Sec.27(1)(e) III & IV of the Kerala Forest Act.

¶26

During trial, prosecution examined PW1 to

¶27

PW8 and marked Exts.P1 to P3 as documentary evidence.

¶28

Crl. Appeal No.1986 of 2004 2

¶29

The incriminating circumstances brought out in evidence were denied by the accused while questioning them under Sec.313 Cr.P.C. They did not adduce any defence evidence. The learned Magistrate found the accused not guilty under Sec.27(1) (e) III & IV of the Kerala Forest Act and acquitted the accused. Being aggrieved by that, they preferred this appeal.

¶30

As per Sec.19 of the Kerala Forest Act, notification declaring reserve forest has to be published in the official gazette. Sec.19 reads as follows:

¶31

Notification declaring forests reserved:

¶32

When the proceedings prescribed in the preceding sections have been taken up, the Government may publish a notification in the Gazette specifying the limits of the forests which it is intended to reserve and declaring the same to be reserved from a date to be fixed by such notification.

¶33

Copies of the notification shall also be published at the headquarters of each taluk in which any portion of the land included in such notification is situate, and in every town, village and headquarters of Panchayats in the neighbourhood of such land. Therefore notification is mandatory.

¶34

This court in A.M.Antony v. Forest Range

¶35

Crl. Appeal No.1986 of 2004 3

¶36

Officer [1977 KLT 691] held as follows:

¶37

Notification under the Forest Act constituting the area where the offence was committed as a reserved forest, not marked and proved in the case. In this case the prosecution has failed to prove that the scene of offence is part of a reserved forest as notified under the Madras Forest Act or under any other statue. Therefore, the convictions and sentences passed against the petitioner cannot be sustained.

¶38

The occurrence was stated by PW1. His

¶39

evidence shows that on 11.10.1993, he visited the place of occurrence with other members of the flying squad on the basis of a complaint. Another guard, PW2 also accompanied PW1 at the time of his visit. On inspection, they found the stump of Anjili tree near the house of one Raveendran Kani. On enquiry, the wife of Raveendran Kani stated that her husband sold the tree two months back. On the basis of that, they prepared a mahazar. Pws. 4, 5 and 7 also stated about the incident in the same manner as stated by the wife of Raveendran Kani. PW3 deposed that on 14.11.1993 he saw three persons removing a log piece through the plantation of

¶40

Crl. Appeal No.1986 of 2004 4

¶41

Kochadappupara. PW6 supported the above evidence. Even though he deposed so, no evidence has been produced by them to show that the stump was found in the forest land. Exts.P1 and P2 are the Mahazars prepared by PW1 and PW3. Ext.P3 is the Form-I proved by PW8. Analysing the above evidence, it is found that they failed to produce any documents to show that the accused trespassed into the forest land and committed any offence.

¶42

Analysing the oral and documentary evidence it is found that prosecution failed to produce the notification as stated under Sec.19 of the Forest Act. The learned Magistrate rightly acquitted the accused and I find no reason to interfere in this matter and the appeal is dismissed accordingly.

¶43

Sd/- P.D. RAJAN, JUDGE

¶44

NS/22/02/2016

¶45

/ True Copy / P.A. To Judge

State of Kerala v. Raveendran

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Kerala v. Raveendran

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

Sreenivasan Vs State of Kerala

State of Kerala Vs Devadas.K.

Kuttappan Vs State of Kerala

The Secy.Mundakayam Grama Panchayath Vs P.C.Babu

State of Kerala Vs Mohanraj

Ashokan Vs State of Kerala