{"id":49899,"date":"2009-03-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-03-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunju-vs-forest-range-officer-on-30-march-2009"},"modified":"2016-02-06T03:58:32","modified_gmt":"2016-02-05T22:28:32","slug":"kunju-vs-forest-range-officer-on-30-march-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunju-vs-forest-range-officer-on-30-march-2009","title":{"rendered":"Kunju vs Forest Range Officer on 30 March, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Kunju vs Forest Range Officer on 30 March, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nCrl.Rev.Pet.No. 1806 of 2005()\n\n\n1. KUNJU, S\/O. JOSEPH,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n2. RAJAN, S\/O. NAGAN,\n3. CHANDRAN, S\/O. MADHAVAN,\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. FOREST RANGE OFFICER,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. STATE OF KERALA,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.C.M.TOMY\n\n                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN\n\n Dated :30\/03\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                    S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, J.\n                - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n                         Crl.R.P.No.1806 of 2005\n                - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -\n                          Dated: 30th March, 2009\n\n                                    ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
       The challenge in the revision is against the concurrent verdict of<\/p>\n
guilty rendered against the accused, three in number, for the<\/p>\n
offences under the Kerala Forest Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the<\/p>\n
Act’). The accused, all of them, were prosecuted for the offences<\/p>\n
punishable under Section 27(1)(e) (iii) and (iv) of the Act on a report<\/p>\n
filed by the Forest Range Officer, Adimali. The accused pleaded not<\/p>\n
guilty. The learned Magistrate, after trial, found the first accused<\/p>\n
guilty of both the offences and convicting him thereunder he was<\/p>\n
sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year each and to<\/p>\n
pay a fine of Rs.1000\/- each for the offences under Section 27(1)(e)<\/p>\n
(iii) and (iv) of the Act, directing him to undergo the substantive<\/p>\n
sentences concurrently. Accused 2 and 3 were found guilty of the<\/p>\n
offence under Section 27(1)(e) (iii) of the Act and on convicting them<\/p>\n
thereunder, each of them was sentenced to undergo simple<\/p>\n
imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1000\/-. They were<\/p>\n
acquitted of the offence under Section 27(1)(e) (iv) of the Act. In<\/p>\n
appeal jointly preferred by the revision petitioners, the learned<\/p>\n
Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction and upheld the sentence<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.1806\/05                     – 2 –\n<\/p>\n
\nwithout any modification. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence,<\/p>\n
the accused have preferred this revision.\n<\/p>\n
      2. The prosecution case, in short, is that a forest party found<\/p>\n
the accused, all of them together engaged in collecting sawed<\/p>\n
teakwood pieces from the reserve forest in Cheriyathoni wtihin the<\/p>\n
limits of Admali Range of Panamkutty forest station on 25.10.1997.<\/p>\n
Seeing the forest party, the accused, all of them, ran away and they<\/p>\n
could not be apprehended. Site inspection disclosed stumps of two<\/p>\n
teak wood trees, sawed timber pieces and a saw used for slicing the<\/p>\n
timber, which were all seized into custody. Timber pieces and<\/p>\n
weapons were taken into custody, preparing Ext.P1 mahazar. A<\/p>\n
report was prepared over the seizure of the teakwood pieces and<\/p>\n
detection of the forest offence implicating the accused, and it was<\/p>\n
filed before the Magistrate Court. After investigation, a final report<\/p>\n
was filed indicting the accused for the offences punishable under<\/p>\n
Section 27(1)(e) (iii) and (iv) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
      3. The accused, entered appearance on summons and,<\/p>\n
pursuant thereto, after taking preliminary evidence, the accused were<\/p>\n
directed to answer the charges imputed, and all of them pleaded not<\/p>\n
guilty. Prosecution examined P.W.1, a forest guard and exhibited<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.1806\/05                    – 3 –\n<\/p>\n
\nExts.P1 to P3 to bring home the guilt of the accused. When<\/p>\n
questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused maintained their<\/p>\n
innocence and no defence evidence was adduced. The learned<\/p>\n
Magistrate, after appreciating the materials produced, found the<\/p>\n
accused guilty of the offences imputed, as indicated earlier, and<\/p>\n
accordingly they were convicted and sentenced. Conviction and<\/p>\n
sentence imposed against them were upheld by the appellate court.<\/p>\n
      4.    I  heard    the    learned   counsel   for    the  revision<\/p>\n
petitioners\/accused and also the learned Public Prosecutor. Learned<\/p>\n
counsel for the revision petitioners assailed the conviction contending<\/p>\n
that there is absolutely no legal evidence in the case to prove the<\/p>\n
guilt of any of the accused. Though five witnesses, all forest officials,<\/p>\n
were cited in the report to prove the case, not even the complainant<\/p>\n
was examined, but only a forest guard to sustain the prosecution<\/p>\n
case, submits the learned counsel. The delay in filing the report is<\/p>\n
also commented upon by the learned counsel to contend that after<\/p>\n
the detection of cutting down of valuable teakwood trees in the forest<\/p>\n
to escape from disciplinary proceedings a false case had been set up<\/p>\n
by the forest officials against the accused. Though the offences were<\/p>\n
alleged to have been committed as early as on 25.10.1997, the final<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.1806\/05                     – 4 –\n<\/p>\n
\nreport was filed before the court only on 25.2.2000 is also<\/p>\n
commented upon by the learned counsel contending that no<\/p>\n
worthmentioning explanation had been given by the prosecution for<\/p>\n
the long delay in completing the investigation over the case. Ext.P3<\/p>\n
notification produced by the prosecution to prove that the offence has<\/p>\n
been committed inside the reserve forest area, according to the<\/p>\n
learned counsel, does not satisfy the requirements under Section 78<\/p>\n
of the Act pointing out that it is only a photo copy and is signed by a<\/p>\n
lower level official of the Forest Department. Lastly, inviting my<\/p>\n
attention to the evidence of P.W.1, a forest guard, it is urged that<\/p>\n
implicit reliance is not permissible on his testimony to found        a<\/p>\n
conviction against the accused for the offences imputed. So, in<\/p>\n
reversal of the conviction founded against the accused by the two<\/p>\n
courts, the learned counsel urged for acquitting them of the offences<\/p>\n
charged. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor contended that<\/p>\n
the materials produced in the case by the prosecution convincingly<\/p>\n
establish the guilt of the accused for the offences with which they<\/p>\n
were found guilty and convicted by the courts below and that no<\/p>\n
interference is called for by exercise of revisional jurisdiction.<\/p>\n
      5. I have perused the records of the case giving consideration<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.1806\/05                    – 5 –\n<\/p>\n
\nto the submissions made by the learned counsel for the revision<\/p>\n
petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. Normally, in a revision,<\/p>\n
a finding on fact entered by the inferior courts is not liable to be<\/p>\n
interfered unless it is so perverse and is found not possible on the<\/p>\n
materials produced. Revisional jurisdiction is supervisory in character<\/p>\n
and it is intended to avoid failure of justice. Be that as it may, on<\/p>\n
perusal of the records, it is evident that other than the evidence of<\/p>\n
P.W.1, a forest guard, and the documentary materials produced,<\/p>\n
there is nothing more to prove the offences set up against the<\/p>\n
accused. So, the crucial question is whether the evidence of P.W.1,<\/p>\n
the forest guard, is convincing, reliable and trustworthy and, further,<\/p>\n
sufficient to found a conviction against the accused. It is interesting<\/p>\n
to note that P.W.1 in his evidence, at the fag end of his cross<\/p>\n
examination, has made an assertion that the three persons seen in<\/p>\n
the reserve forest collecting sawed teakwood         pieces were the<\/p>\n
accused. His evidence show that the forest party saw the accused at<\/p>\n
a distance of 40 meters while they were engaged in collecting sawed<\/p>\n
teakwood. Once the perpetrators of the crime saw the forest party, it<\/p>\n
is the admitted case of the prosecution, all of them ran away and<\/p>\n
could not be apprehended. The evidence of P.W.1 does not inspire<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.1806\/05                       – 6 –\n<\/p>\n
\nconfidence to hold that the accused proceeded against were really the<\/p>\n
persons who were seen by the forest party though his version of<\/p>\n
detection of the forest offence is otherwise found acceptable.<\/p>\n
Prosecution has also no explanation why the complainant and other<\/p>\n
forest officials named in the report had not been examined in the<\/p>\n
case. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the accused,<\/p>\n
the delay in filing Form I report, i.e., nearly 10 days after detection<\/p>\n
of the forest offence cannot be viewed lightly. Form II report was<\/p>\n
filed before the court three years after the detection of the offence,<\/p>\n
the investigation taking such long time for its completion. However,<\/p>\n
the prosecution has no case that any of the present accused had been<\/p>\n
apprehended, and got identified by any of the forest officials who<\/p>\n
detected the forest offence during such investigation. The materials<\/p>\n
collected over these three years other than what was collected at the<\/p>\n
time of filing of Form I report, it is seen, is the incorporation of names<\/p>\n
of some forest officials as witnesses and producing a notification that<\/p>\n
the place where the offences were committed was within the reserve<\/p>\n
forest area. True, the gravity of the offences under the Forest Act<\/p>\n
call for deterrent punishment, but when there is absolutely no<\/p>\n
evidence worthmentioning, it will be a miscarriage of justice to<\/p>\n
Crl.R.P.1806\/05                   – 7 –\n<\/p>\n
\nsustain a conviction     founded by placing implicit reliance on the<\/p>\n
solitary evidence of forest guard, which on the face of it does not<\/p>\n
inspire confidence. His evidence in fixing the identity of the accused<\/p>\n
as the perpetrators of the forest offences imputed appears to be<\/p>\n
undoubtedful in the backdrop that the forest party saw the persons<\/p>\n
engaged collecting saw teakwoods at a distance of 40 meters away,<\/p>\n
i.e., inside a forest. The other contentions raised by the learned<\/p>\n
counsel to attack the conviction in the given facts need not be<\/p>\n
examined as I find that the conviction of the accused cannot be<\/p>\n
sustained as there is no legal evidence to support it. So much so, the<\/p>\n
conviction and sentence imposed against the accused are set aside<\/p>\n
and they are acquitted of the offences charged. Fine amount, if any,<\/p>\n
remitted by the accused shall be refunded.\n<\/p>\n
       Revision is allowed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
srd                          S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN, JUDGE\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Kunju vs Forest Range Officer on 30 March, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 1806 of 2005() 1. KUNJU, S\/O. JOSEPH, … Petitioner 2. RAJAN, S\/O. NAGAN, 3. CHANDRAN, S\/O. MADHAVAN, Vs 1. FOREST RANGE OFFICER, … Respondent 2. STATE OF KERALA, For Petitioner :SRI.C.M.TOMY For Respondent :PUBLIC […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-49899","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nKunju vs Forest Range Officer on 30 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunju-vs-forest-range-officer-on-30-march-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kunju vs Forest Range Officer on 30 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunju-vs-forest-range-officer-on-30-march-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-03-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-02-05T22:28:32+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kunju-vs-forest-range-officer-on-30-march-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kunju-vs-forest-range-officer-on-30-march-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Kunju vs Forest Range Officer on 30 March, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-05T22:28:32+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kunju-vs-forest-range-officer-on-30-march-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1480,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kunju-vs-forest-range-officer-on-30-march-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kunju-vs-forest-range-officer-on-30-march-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kunju-vs-forest-range-officer-on-30-march-2009\",\"name\":\"Kunju vs Forest Range Officer on 30 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-03-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-05T22:28:32+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kunju-vs-forest-range-officer-on-30-march-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kunju-vs-forest-range-officer-on-30-march-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kunju-vs-forest-range-officer-on-30-march-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kunju vs Forest Range Officer on 30 March, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Kunju vs Forest Range Officer on 30 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunju-vs-forest-range-officer-on-30-march-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kunju vs Forest Range Officer on 30 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunju-vs-forest-range-officer-on-30-march-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-03-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-02-05T22:28:32+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunju-vs-forest-range-officer-on-30-march-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunju-vs-forest-range-officer-on-30-march-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Kunju vs Forest Range Officer on 30 March, 2009","datePublished":"2009-03-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-05T22:28:32+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunju-vs-forest-range-officer-on-30-march-2009"},"wordCount":1480,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunju-vs-forest-range-officer-on-30-march-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunju-vs-forest-range-officer-on-30-march-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunju-vs-forest-range-officer-on-30-march-2009","name":"Kunju vs Forest Range Officer on 30 March, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-03-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-05T22:28:32+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunju-vs-forest-range-officer-on-30-march-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunju-vs-forest-range-officer-on-30-march-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kunju-vs-forest-range-officer-on-30-march-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kunju vs Forest Range Officer on 30 March, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/49899","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=49899"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/49899\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=49899"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=49899"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=49899"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}