IN THE HIGH comm' 01? KAR-NATAKA. BANGALQRE DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF' MARc11200g 0 ' BEFORE ' 0 ' THE HON? E MR. J"uf%fi*'E 0 _ BETWEEN Bagsavaxdiappa @ Raja, S/0 Shivalingappa, V Aged abitzut 30 years, * * '-- } Occ: Agriculture and Q9'o.,1_i_s,. ; - . ._ Residing At Mailigerévfliage, 3 ~ ' C311.a11_IIs=Ioir'i:'I'r_a_1*:1!«:- =' A V ./tr' ._ 3 .V ' Z. '_ ._ ' . Davanagdre Peuuoner (By Advocate) State by' Range FoI*0St« Cimcer, c1a_m-mgm, " 0 ' __ Bairaxdagcre Distfict; : Respondent
0. , HCGP)
* ‘If’t1ié.V.¢2:ii-in1i11a1 Revision Petition is filed under Section
39? 85401 Cr.P. C. praying to set aside the Judgment and
‘V . ‘ I
sentemse cf the District Ea Bass “:13 Judga-, .*3.’_.’.%-‘”1.-2-.gere in
‘0C1:1.A.VNo.15/2005 dated 13.04.2005 -and Judgment and
* _ ‘.sc1itcncc of the Pr1., C.J.(Jr.Dn.] Ba JMF’C.’1., C , in
C.C.No.411]2000 dated 14.12.2004 and acquit the
d ” ‘fipctitioncr of all the charges.
}'{,s”Lru,»’~–i’–»’-‘\~’v’–
This petition coming on for hearing, t11is*”‘day the
Court, made the following:
_ he neti one!’
C’;’nandrappa who was airayed asa-“i« was for
offence punishable under Sectioii (a) of the
K.F.Act and senteiicaed-%..to months and to pay a
fine of Rs.2,0QO_/- for a period of
4-.
three meiims. }i’he pietiiiciieraat steed ‘”-“s c uitued ‘f ”
‘e
charge under’ as not proved. As they
were’.he1_d the”‘oi_Te11ces punishable under Section
24 Section ‘the Karnataka Forest Act, they
were not sepai’ate1y’s_.nt_.ne_.d _,r .11 o..ene… punisha..1e
‘I”‘|!’\’I_
9 In, uecause of the sentence imposed
,f»oi’–.Vthe punishable under Section 104 (a) and 24
of Forest Act, by an order of conviction and
“sentence dated 14-12-2004 passed by the Principal Civil
, ..go ,-.Ir.Dn} and JIMIFIN (}l1annMi”i in C.C.41l,’2(}02,
it the said order of conviction and seritencewas chaiienged
A-2 .-.;.1..ng with * ce:accus.eu
by petitioner Accused No.2, in Cr1.A.15:/2O05»T””‘and the
appeal was dismissed by an order dated the
District and Session 3 Judge, DavaI1gere:.~-.:.VV ‘
I D
A ,_0 1’1 : .
“tttltiflfler n- to 1.133 “‘1. \..1u1 1. .
1” .
challenging the order of convicflon scntertee}
2 Th- ‘crrf facts. of ~fi that on
31-12-1999 at about8_9_’a,i1a;’wher1-i.}?,W._1 and P.w.2 and
other Forest « ‘_he9.ttii1ty in Kukwada
Ubrani Pizéinziigudda lake, petitioner
. .., “::,_. ,
“along w1L.;.Vc9o-aoeueede No.1 withou. any permit or “sense
were i’onn.d’cai5r3?ii1g:’..i9eete iogw tn 5.750/’ .
23
(A3
3
3*
:3
P}
I!
:3
9
J
5
E
E
5
CD
1
rs’? if:-..\ n :3 rn-n-is-nnri
114 an. um: name excuunxxuu
9 ‘ 2, got marked Ex.P.1 to P5 and I\/1.0.1.
1915a-etei1c};¢1a11?1iM.0.2 axe.
1’ P.W.1 Satlwanarayana, in his evidence has
that on 13-12-1999 himself and other forest
xiguards had been on beat duty and when they were near
ggametiu.
Handigudda forest, they found A- 1 and petitioner’ »”ca1*Iyi11g
beete log and an axe and on seeing the
gar:
can
K:
C:
OI
V 61:’
F-
)–d
.. 1
Chandrappa but liowever this’ ‘petitioner”V’-it-.2_v fa»-ay.
A-1 was taken to the ofliceufiaioizg iieeteifiog and the
axe. They made Aairid; that they had no
u 0 . c v ‘ __
permit or 116611.66 forAeo..m’1″f,’1115,J,_ the a…md,1og. A-1 confessed,
himself a;1Iii..v_11e39eii11wjrereV g the same having
cut _ near Malligekere area.
Theyifiseizedivtuhe-.» Forest officials on seizure of
bee e 1 “g.___a”nd gave distinct identification marks
I
4
_’y’ Luci . u _’y d1’f’:’
1 per Ex.P.2; seized the property and forwarded
H to the jurisdictional Magistrate. They
0 alnri
V=f|Gl
1′]. I
forwarded a report to the RFC and produced M.O.1 and
H 1″ T+”-;P1andP-
H’ .
ulavasfi Iv LI.-LL J44 – – 4. owe
5.P.’W.2 was working asfiange Forest Officer. He in
his evidence has deposed that on 31-12-1999 P.W.1 and
)U2nu~U–‘:’&–
(1 ~
other Forest Guards had produced A-I before along
with M.Os.1 and 2 and Ex:-3.P.1 -and 13.2. the
before the Court along With.4___reniat_1_d’ he has
issued a certificate as per the log is
a forest yroduce. A A
6. ‘.has__V}ieposed that he had
arrested A-2 who ran away from
been ‘held agency to get identified
petitioneiiaeeusedA’No}’§. His implication in the case is on
V’ – basis’ of theV”vo1t1nta1’y statement of A-1 Chandrappa.
P’.-.’._v’v’.1_.’ ‘Except the voluntary statement of it-1_in1pIicati11g
do the ee-‘accused i.e., the petitioner-accusegl _h_erei_n_, there is
/,,V_”ne:”other material to establish that it was petitioner A-2
~-iwho was also involved in the commission of the offence
j;L,Q,.mcL3Ll/_._
and was present and was carrying the beats 192 81013;; with
A-1. The Courts below have erroneously relie.<t1_.Vthe
ve..int….r3r sta..en . t of the co-accused heidi the '
petitioneriaeensed guilty cf the eifenees, tor-Iw11.jieti.i1ie"
been convicted and sentenced. 'A_s'~- such,.–".i.t11.e °o1'<iei*< of
conviction and sentence reijnii-es interfenenie in this
revision petition. Hence Q tl1e–'_Vfo1i1ovvi.ng:' " « _
iQRnRR\)'"'
The revisisjn petition is iaiiovieti and we order of
+
3'
conviction ~ the petitioner for
offences _ Section 24 and 104(a} of the
a kn F'ore's_t° sentencing him for the said
off toes is set" aside, The accused petitioner is acquitted
' of"the–vciiarges__level1ed against him. "i"'ne fne ii' paid by
H be refunded to him. The bail bonds
executed the petitioner shall stand dissolved.
i Sbb/-
Si!-3
Iudgfi