Basavarajappa @ Raja vs State By Range Forest Officer … on 10 March, 2008

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