uni":
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY NOVEMBER, 2009
BEFORE
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE ARALI NAo'_A"RzéQ;L:~I: .
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.»AA1>v469/2'E}0~T:7':: '
Between: V E H
1. Ani1S/0 Giddanaika '
Aged about 30 years, .
R/o Thoralh, Thyavni Po_st'.»,_
Sri§eriTa1uk, V ' is V E-
Chikmagalur District. is
2. Umesha S'/"0 Sriniv'asa "
Aged " --.
/ 0 ' K111' ';!3h.eby1u . _
C'hik1;aInaga'1A1;1'=Qis.tfi§:t.
, _ ...Appe11ants
[By Sri.Mai1.esha.M. 2\dvo'cate)
.....
'
lVI'af1d_ag.ad'de, Shimoga.
"7 ...Respondent
_ (By"'Sri.Vija3}akumar Majage, HCGP)
E "This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374 [2]
C1£*1.P.C. by the advocate for the appellants against the
"judgment dated.31.8.200'7 passed by the S.J.. FTC-I,
" Shimoga, in S.C.No.268/06 - convicting the
appellants/aCcused'No.1 81 2 for the offence p/u/s.87 of
K.F'.ACt r/W See.34 of {PC and sentencing them to
undergo S.I. for 5 years each and to pay a fine of
Rs.50,000/~ each I.D., of payment of fine to undergo SI.
for one year each. ..
This Criminal Appeai coming on for hea:'in*,g""'t:h'i.s
day, the Court delivered the follovn'ng:~
JUDGMENT
Accused Nos.1 and Ses.s’:i”o_ns’
No.268/2006 on the file ofV»t.1fi4ev..learne(i s¢lslsioiis’-‘Judge, ” it
Fast T rack Courtel, Shimoga-,– l:.haV’e.._challengedi in this
appeal the correctness’ of and Order of
conviction dat.e.ti the said case
convicting for the offence
punishable of the Karnataka Forest
Act, 1963, ” _
1. ‘bVrief.”facts, as alleged in the complaint
. ll0.02OO4vvlcontained in EX.P3 Performa FIR are
[a,3″ 25.10.2004 at about 12.45 p.m., 1>w«3,
it it the Range Forest Officer went to Kyathara
Camp along with his staff namely PW-2.,
Felix, Bhaskat Shetty, Manjunath and
1\/I.R.Sadananda in the jeep belonging to the
,:._….f’~/”V
Forest Department as he had information in
the morning of that day that somertiwo
persons were carrying sandal xvood—.’i:i}c_§gé;’}iy
on a motor cycle from Thirthaha_:i}i_
Shimoga. While they were
said place, for sacid.__motor_ cjJcie,;’th’ey_not_;iced
the accused 1 and ‘onVV:a’:movfr;or cycle
from Thirthé;hai.1i seeing the
compiainant-‘–~.andV’heist .s_t.af§.”‘Who were in
u1j1ifori;frr1_1, acr:1isVed__.Njo,i who was riding the
” motorcycle towards
iThirthnalha1l.i.:’in”_.order to escape from the
i4’conip}Va.inant’;~’ “V
ffhe Viicompvlainant and his staff chased the
‘M ‘vsaid_:..motorcycie. After covering a distance of
. kilometer, near 17’?! mile stone on the
road towards Thirthahaili, one stage carriage
bus came from Thirthahalli side and the said
rnotorcycie dashed against. the said bus.
Consequently, the sandaiwood pieces that
were being carried by the accused on the
<»m.,_'w{""""*'\../""'-~–»~'-"
(c)
3..
» e:xa.1__nine’d_
IIIA 4 –
said motorcycle fell on the road and both the
accused sustained severe injuries as a result
of the said accident,
Thereafter. the complainant took
injured »~ accused. to the V’
treatment. Then he retiirned of;
offence and seized the
pieces, which had”‘vfa”iEen on the V
mean time” he ‘1§vejpt:d”wpatchlVon'”the said
sandalwood by _1.Manj unath, a
‘ “fQi%est§;11i’a.fd,and another person.
its case against the
acc1_tsed’.i’orl otfence, the prosecution has got
H to 3 and it has got marked the
to 12 and M.0.Nos.1 and 2. All the
H are members of the staff of Forest
Ifiepartrnent. CW«2, 4 and 5, the charge sheet witnesses
also members of the staff of the Forest Department
vivorking under PWI-3, the complainant. Therefore. the
learned Counsel for the appellants —- accused strongly
contended that the seizure of M.O.Nos.1 and 2, the
r”-*—i°M”””””‘*-»-“re”-*=-“‘
-5-
sandal wood pieces, under the panchanama E.x.P2
couid not have been accepted by the Trial. Court.
4. It is pertinent to note that the inVci:dc_nt
occurred at about 12.45 pm. in the day
03¢’:
there were stage carriage bus atuthe sce”n’e–._of offe–nce_.” ”~ 2
c..,-….–.,.,» .
_,….u–r
there could not be Adifficulty for
;fi’s.<:""'7
any of the passengers or ev'eVn-the dr'i\¥er
the said bus to act as;__s3tated by
the complainant in had secured
pancha to the said refused
to sign the and therefore. he got the
signaturesfloif _the_ CW2. Bhaskar Shetty and
CW4}; Manjunatha, the forest guards, this fact is not
»st'ated .,in«.}:3x.P,2 seizure panchanama.
it ' pertinent to note that none of CWs.2
andiél. has been examined for the prosecution to prove
A theseizure of the said sandal wood pieces.
6. Besides this, PW1. I~i.R.SubraInanya, the
“””?’Z”‘”
Range Forest Officer claims to have examined the
sandalwood pieces and issued EXP} to the effect that
(,,….____ug’°”‘”\-°~….–a-
‘pl_a’in’ant ‘get
vor”cond.1.Actor of –. V ”
the said pieces were of sandalwood. Section 62 (c) of
the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 provides that aV.p.ejrs_on
examining the forest produce shall be a
not below the rank of a Range Forest Offic;er]an’d *
Forest Officer should have ur1d.erg_on.e’ ,trainilrig'”ir1«__tb,e
examination of forest prodt!ce.._and'”ne–shouldlhave been
authorised by the State for”e2′;anivifning the
forest produce. if if .
7. On pcareful-‘”i’eading_;=of”hfevviidence of PW}, it
could be a Range Forest
Officer; in his evidence that he had
undergone of forest produce
and«.{;hvat.~ he wnasavuthorised by the State Government for
»e§{aminirzg’the forest produce. This being so, it is quite
provisions of Section 62 (C) of Karnataka
Forest Actiivhich_ are mandatory have not been complied
‘l’herefore, the Very fact that iVI.O.1, the seized
‘ forest produce were pieces of sandal wood, has not been
it proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.
“%d°’