State of Kerala v. Chellappan Kani Karunakaran Kani

Kerala HC11 Jan 2016CRL.A/1987/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court allowed the appeal against a Magistrate's acquittal in a forest offence case. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the area was a reserved forest, as no notification under Section 19 of the Kerala Forest Act was produced. Relying on A.M. Antony, the court found oral evidence insufficient without the notification, rendering the acquittal correct.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is dismissed; the order of acquittal in C.C. 314 of 1997 is maintained.

State of Kerala Vs Chellappan Kani Karunakaran Kani — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/21ST POUSHA, 1937

¶5

CRL.A.No. 1987 of 2004 (C)

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER IN CC 314/1997 of J.M.F.C.-II (FOREST OFFENCES),PUNALUR

¶7

APPELLANT(S)/COMPLAINANT:

¶8

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

¶9

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. DHANESH MATHEW MANJOORAN

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/ACCUSED:

¶11

1. CHELLAPPAN KANI KARUNAKARAN KANI, KUNNUPURATH VEEDU, KOCHADAPPUPARA KANI, SETTLEMENT PANGOD VILLAGE, NEDUMANGADU TALUK.

¶12

2. PADMANABHAN ASARI BABU ASARI, PALLIKUNNILTHADATHARIKATH VEEDU, PERINGAMALA VILLAGE NEDUMANGADU TALUK.

¶13

3. NARAYANAN KANI DAMODARAN KANI, ANCHANAKUZHIKKARA KANI VILLAGE, NEDUMANGADU TALUK.

¶14

4. MADHAVAN KANI MANOHARAN,

¶15

KUNNUMPURATH VEEDU, KOCHADAPPUPARA KANI, SETTLEMENT PADINJATTINKARA PUTHEN VEEDU, KONNAKALABHAGOM CHITTUR KURUPPINEKONNA, PERINGAMALA TALUK NEDUMANGADU TALUK.

¶16

R1TO R4 BY ADV. SRI.M.RAJASEKHARAN NAYAR BY ADV. SMTK.N.RAJANI

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

STK

¶19

P.D. RAJAN, J.

¶20

Crl. Appeal 1987 of 2004 ---------------------------------------------Dated this the 11^th of January, 2016

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

Appellant is the complainant in C.C.314/97 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Punalur (Forest Offences) which was filed for offence punishable under Section 27 (1),(e) III of the Kerala Forest Act. Complainant’s case is that on 31.01.93, accused trespassed into the Kochadappupara Kani Settlement Reserve Forest in Palode within Vamanapuram reserve, cut and removed two jack trees standing therein and thereby sustained a loss of Rs.500/- to the Government. Hence the Forest Range Officer, Palode filed the above case in the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II (Forest Offences) Punalur. To prove the case, complainant examined PW1 and PW2 and no documentary documents were marked from their side. The learned Magistrate after analysing the evidence, discharged the accused. Being aggrieved by that, the complainant preferred this appeal.

¶23

Crl.R.P.1987 of 2004 2

¶24

Heard the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶25

According to Section 19 of the Kerala Forest Act:

¶26

“When the proceedings prescribed in the preceding sections have been taken, 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.

¶27

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.

¶28

From the date so fixed, the forest shall be deemed to be a “Reserved Forest”.

¶29

A perusal of the Section extracted above shows that, no documents were produced in the trial court to prove that the accused trespassed into a Reserve Forest. The oral evidence of PW1 and PW2 is not sufficient to prove that aspect.

¶30

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

¶31

Officer 1977 KLT 691 , held that,

¶32

“Notification under the Forest Act

¶33

Crl.R.P.1987 of 2004 3

¶34

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 tailed to prove that the scene of offence is part of a reserved forest as notified under the Madras Forest Act or under any other statute. Therefore, the convictions and sentences passed against the petitioner cannot be sustained.”

¶35

A perusal of the procedure adopted by the complainant shows that no notification was produced in the trial court to proceed against the accused. In the circumstance, the trial court rightly acquitted the accused and there is no illegality in the above order and there is no merit in this appeal and it is dismissed accordingly.

¶36

STK

¶37

Sd/- P.D. RAJAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY//

¶38

P.A. TO JUDGE

State of Kerala v. Chellappan Kani Karunakaran Kani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Kerala v. Chellappan Kani Karunakaran Kani

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

Ponnappan Vs State of Kerala

Vasudeva Kurup Vs State of KERALA24

Sujatha Vs State of Kerala

M.P.Stanley Vs P.v.Sivaraman

Unnikrishnan Vs State of Kerala

Prabhakaran Vs State of Kerala