ORDER
Venkatesh, J.
1. The accused in Criminal Case No. 2928 of 1983 on the file of the Additional Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Madikeri have preferred this Revision against the judgment of that Court and also the confirming judgment of the Sessions Judge, Madikeri concurrently finding them guilty of an offence punishable under Section 87 of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 (the Act) and sentencing each of them to suffer R-1 for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default to undergo R-1 for a further period of one year. The petitioners have preferred this revision from jail, where they are undergoing the sentence imposed upon them.
2. The prosecution case was that on 29-8-1983, Head Constable-Chengappa (P.W. 1) attached to the Kushalnagar Police Station was on Patrol duty. He had noticed these two accused, sitting on the road-side in the Bychanalli area of Kushalnagar near a cycle shop. They were thus sitting on a bag containing something and which had been tied. It is said that when P.W. 1 and his staff were moving in that direction, having seen them, the accused had started running away. On suspicion, they chased them detained them, brought them near the gunny bag and got it opened and found as many as 18 billets of sandalwood inside the bag. A mahazar was drawn in the presence of the panchas and the accused were charge-sheeted after investigating into the case. The evidence discloses that the 18 billets had been subjected to an examination by an expert who has issued a certificate as per Ex. P-3 to the effect that the seized billets were sandalwood billets. The case of the prosecution is that while attaching these 18 billets, the I.O. had specifically marked each billet from a paint not easily erasable. It is also their case that, with the permission of the Court retaining one billet, they bad disposed of the remaining ones. These facts have been spoken to not only by P.W. 1 the Head Constable referred to above, but also the panch associated with the mahazar and other witnesses. On an assessment of these facts, the two Courts below have, as stated above, concurrently found these accused guilty.
3. I have perused the Revision Petition containing the grounds urged by these petitioners assailing these findings. I have also perused the records having obtained the same from the Trial Court. I find no good grounds to interfere with these concurrent findings. On behalf of these petitioners, their Counsel had pleaded before the learned Sessions Judge, Madikeri to take a lenient view in the matter of sentence. Section 104(f) of the Act prohibits Courts from extending the beneficial provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act or applying Section 360 Cr. P.C. to cases like this, and, besides this. Section 87 of the Act provides for a maximum punishment of upto seven years and fine which may extend to Rs. 25,000/-, and provides for a minimum sentence in the case of a first offence which shall not be less than 3 years, and fine, not less than Rs. 10,000/-. Taking note of these provisions, the Courts below have awarded the minimum sentence prescribed in law. Neither, Courts subordinate to this Court, nor, this Court can go below the minimum sentence prescribed in the statute concerned. In the State of Andhra Pradesh v. S.R. Rayadhamappa, , the Supreme Court observes that where a statute prescribes a minimum sentence for an offence and does not provide for any exceptions and does not vest the Court with any discretion to award a sentence below the prescribed minimum under any circumstances, the High Court cannot in its Revisional jurisdiction reduce the sentence of imprisonment to less than the minimum prescribed.
4. Though for the reasons stated above, this Court cannot consider at all the plea of the accused as to the severity of the sentence imposed on them, I feel that it may be appropriate to place on record the views of this Court in the matter of the sentencing of the accused found guilty of having committed offences arising under the Act.
5. As observed by the Supreme Court in Ram Saharaya Chakravorthy v. State of M.P., 1975 (UJ) SC 957 that :
“In judging the adequacy of a sentence the nature of the offence, the circumstances of its commission, the age and character of the offender, injury to individuals or to society, effect of the punishment on the offender, eye to correction and reformation of the offender are some amongst many other factors which would be ordinarily taken into consideration by Courts.”
6. If man is the measure of progress, and it ought to be so in a civilised society, wedded to the well being of all, as ours indeed is, emphasis in the matter of sentencing of the accused, shall have to be on correction and reformation of the offender. This is not to belittle the importance of a piece of socio economic legislation like the Forest Act. Apart from causing loss to the State by depleting the rich and valuable forest wealth of the country, the looting of forest, in course of time, will cause a grave ecological imbalance which would be to the very detriment of life on earth. The culprits deserve to be taken rather seriously. At the same time, we cannot be impervious to certain facts like the age of the accused, the quantity of forest produce seized from them, the circumstances under which they have been caught and the fact that possibly they may be the first offenders. The accused, when they were caught, were in their teens. Poor fellows, possibly unemployed, and possibly had been lured into this sordid game by some other powerful professional timber smuggler. Prospect of easily making a few chips in the bargain had perhaps driven them to this situation. If they were first offenders, as it appears to be so, the possibility of their realising the mistake they had committed and of correcting themselves and not indulging again in such things cannot be ruled out. Are we providing them with any such opportunity? Are we not driving them to the company of hard-core criminals for as long a period of three years? and would not this drive them to an irredeemable mental attitude? would that be ultimately conducive to the health and well being of the society? In my opinion, a first offender indulging in a crime like this deserves to be treated on an entirely different footing. Even if a substantive sentence of imprisonment is made obligatory, it should measure with the nature of the crime and a certain amount of discretion ought to be left to the Courts. Besides this, the punishment, even if it is imprisonment for a term, should be oriented to reform offenders like these, so that, they could be re-claimed back to the society as law abiding citizens in future. Forests occupy far flung areas of the State. They contain within them or in their periphery large number of villages, inhabited by many poor unemployed persons with no education, no social background and no opportunity to learn. Many a time such persons are easily won over by hard core forest smugglers having Inter-State connections and sometimes wielding through others considerable political or other influences. Unless the abettors are caught in the act of abetting, that is to say, while actually guiding the operations or otherwise providing proof of their abetment, it is impossible to catch hold of the influential or the powerful behind such operations. It is only these poor fellows who are caught. I wish, the authorities concerned, who, I am sure, are also equally interested in these aspects, would apply themselves seriously to this problem and will take steps to modify appropriately this part of the law. A second offender may be severely dealt with and a third one, certainly more severely. But why not provide a chance to the man to correct himself? Varied situations drive men to commit offences. The Sages say that God dwells even in the heart of a sinner. If that is so, why drive him once and for all to destruction? If there be scope for improvement and if he is not a habitual offender, let the law give him a chance.
This petition stands disposed of as aforesaid.