1991 Supreme(Kar) 69
Karnataka High Court
Siraj - Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka By Malur Police - Respondent
Decided On : 01-31-91
CRI.R.P. : 331 of 1988
C.H.JADHAV, MOHANDAS N.HEADE
Strict compliance with mandatory provisions of the law is essential for the prosecution to prove its case.
Headnote:
Mandatory Provisions - Compliance with Section 62(3) of Karnataka Forest Act - Section 62(3) - The court discussed the mandatory provisions of Section 62(3) of the Karnataka Forest Act, emphasizing the requirement for strict compliance and the fatal consequences of failure to do so. The court cited several precedents highlighting the mandatory nature of the provision and the necessity for strict compliance. The failure to follow the mandatory provision was deemed fatal to the prosecution's case, leading to the acquittal of the petitioners.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were convicted for removing sandalwood without the required permit. The prosecution failed to prove the seizure of the sandalwood billets in compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 62(3) of the Karnataka Forest Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the seizure of the sandalwood billets in compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 62(3) of the Karnataka Forest Act, leading to the acquittal of the petitioners.
Issues: Failure to prove compliance with mandatory provisions of Section 62(3) of the Karnataka Forest Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prosecution's failure to prove the seizure of the sandalwood billets in compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 62(3) of the Karnataka Forest Act was fatal to the case.
Final Decision: The criminal revision petition was allowed, the conviction of the petitioners was set aside, and they were acquitted of the offence with which they had been charged.
( 1 ) THIS criminal revision petition is preferred by the petitioners against the order dated 11-7-1988 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Shimoga, in Criminal Appeals Nos. 27 and 29 of 82 confirming the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned II Additional Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, II Court, Shimoga, in C. C. No. 394/ 81.
( 2 ) I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader fully and perused the records of the case.
( 3 ) THE four revision petitions were the accused in C. C. No. 394/81 on the file of the II Additional Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Shimoga.
( 4 ) THE case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: that on 30-9-1978 the Range Forest Officer Syed Inayuthulla received credible information that at Hirebylu Forest in Mandagadde Hobli, Thirthahalli Taluk some persons were removing sandalwood. He collected the staff and panchas and proceeded to the said area and waited for some time. When they were waiting so they saw petitioners 1 to 4 coming from the forest carrying a sandalwood log each. The petitioners on seeing the forest officials threw away the sandalwood logs and tried to run away from the spot. However at that time the forest officials were able to catch hold of the petitioners 1 and 2 though the other two accused ran away from the spot. During the course of interrogation, the Forest Authorities learnt that the petitioners had stored the sandalwood billets in the nearby area. They went to the spot and saw as many as 61 sandalwood billets and also the stumps. The Forest Authorities drew up mahazar at the spot. The petitioners were not able to produce any permit required under the Act either for removing the sandalwood billets or for carrying the same. After seizing them under a panchanama the Forest Officials came back to the office and they reported the matter to the police of Malur and the Malur Police registered a case and after completing the investigation submitted the charge-sheet.
( 5 ) THE learned Magistrate after trial, held the petitioners guilty of the offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 84 and 86 of the Karnataka Forest Act and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years in respect of the offence punishable under Section 379, Indian Penal Code and one and half years in respect of Section 86 of the Karnataka Forest Act. The petitioners have preferred two appeals viz. , Criminal Appeals Nos. 27 and 29 of 1982 in the Court of the Principal Sessions Judge, Shimoga, against the said Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned II Additional Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, First Class (II Court), Shimoga, in C. C. No. 394/81. The learned Principal Sessions Judge, Shimoga, after hearing the appeals, dismissed the same. Hence, this criminal revision petition.
( 6 ) THE petitioners have been convicted for an offence punishable under Section 379, Indian Penal Code and Section 86 of the karnataka Forest Act. Both the Courts below have not applied their mind to see whether the prosecution has been able to prove the ingredients of Section 62 (3) of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963, in respect of the property which is alleged to have been seized from the scene of offence. Section 62 (5) of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 reads as follows: - seizure of property liable to confiscation; (3) Every Officer seizing any property under this section shall place on such property or the receptacle or vehicle (if any) in which it is contained a mark indicating that the same has been so seized and shall, as soon as may be, make a report of such seizure; (A) Where the offence on account of which the seizure has been made is in respect of timber, ivory, firewood or charcoal which is the property of the State Government or in respect of sandalwood, to the concerned authorised officer under Section 71a, and (B)