ORDER :

This revision petition is filed by accused No.1/petitioner to set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 30.09.2011 passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Bhadravathi, in Criminal Appeal No.70/2011, modifying the judgment dated 22.02.2011 passed by the Civil Judge and Additional JMFC, Bhadravathi in C.C.No.3604/2006 for having convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 86 and 87 of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 (‘Act’ for short), and to acquit the petitioner of the charges levelled against him.

2. The petitioner herein is accused No.1 and respondent is State before the Trial Court. The ranks of the parties before the Courts below are retained for the sake of convenience.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that on 07.08.2001, the Forest Guard and staff of RFO, Bhadravathi, upon receiving a credible information, had been to a place near Amalamatha Hospital in Official Jeep and while they were proceeding on the pathway towards the forest, they heard the noise of some persons talking to each other. Thereafter, they found three persons coming out of the forest and they were visible in the moon light. Immediately they apprehended one person i.e. accused No.1/petitioner herein and other two persons ran away. The accused No.1/petitioner was found in possession of a bag containing roots and chips of Sandal wood. Upon enquiry, accused No.1/petitioner disclosed the names of other two persons as Muneer and Shekhar Naika. The properties were weighed and seized under a panchanama and the FIR came to be registered against accused No.1/petitioner and two others. After investigation, charge sheet came to be filed against three persons and the case of accused No.3 has been spilt up. Accused Nos.1 and 2 appeared before the Trial Court. Charges were framed against them. They pleaded not guilty. Therefore, the prosecution was called upon to adduce evidence on its behalf. The prosecution in all examined three witnesses has PWs.1 to 3 and got marked five documents as Exs.P.1 to P.5. After completion of trial, statements of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. have been recorded. The case of the accused was one of total denial, but not entered into any defence evidence. After hearing both sides, the learned Magistrate found guilt of accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 86 and 87 of the Act and sentenced the accused Nos.1 and 2 to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 25 days and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each.

4. Being aggrieved by the same, accused No.2-Muneer challenged the conviction and sentence by filing Criminal Appeal No.50/2011; whereas the State filed Criminal Appeal No.70/2011 challenging the inadequate punishment. After hearing both sides, the First Appellate Court allowed the Criminal Appeal filed by accused No.2 Muneer in Criminal Appeal No.50/2011 and acquitted him of the charges leveled against him. On the other hand, the appeal filed by the State was allowed. The sentence passed by the Trial Court to undergo simple imprisonment for 25 days against accused No.1/petitioner was enhanced to three years with a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months for contravening Sections 86 and 87 of the Act. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Being aggrieved, the present revision petition is filed by accused No.1/petitioner.

5. The petitioner contended that the Courts below ought to have discarded the prosecution evidence on the ground that there is no independent witness or local witness examined. There is no investigation regarding the place where the Sandal wood was cut and removed. There are discrepancies in the evidence of the official witnesses. They have not followed the mandatory provision of giving a certificate to show that it is a forest produce or Sandal wood. The First Appellate Court acquitted accused No.2 disbelieving the evidence of the prosecution,