JUDGMENT :

The accused who have been convicted for the offences punishable under section 379 IPC and section 86 of the Karnataka Forest Act read with section 34 IPC have preferred this appeal challenging the judgment dated 28.12.2013 in S.C 56/2013 on the file of I Additional Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru. Each of them has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of five years and fine of Rs.50,000/-with default imprisonment period of three months in relation to offence under section 86 of the Karnataka Forest Act, and simple imprisonment for a period of two years with fine of Rs.2,000/-with default sentence of ten days for the offence under section 379 IPC.

2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 23.11.2012, the forest officials were on patrolling duty at Gubburu near Karkeswara Reserve Forest Area. The accused were found in possession of six sandalwood billets weighing 28 kgs. They were transporting the same without any valid pass or permit. The forest officials seized the sandalwood billets and arrested the accused.

3. When the prosecution went into trial, it examined five witnesses PWs 1 to 5 and relied upon 9 documents, Exs. P1 to P9 and 6 material objects, MOs1 to 6, all being sandalwood billets. The learned Sessions Judge, having assessed the evidence, arrived at a conclusion that the evidence of the witnesses and the documents produced by them would establish the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt.

4. Though the appellants have raised many grounds in the memorandum of appeal, the learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Ganesha, submitted that he would confine his arguments to grounds (e) and (f) of the memorandum of appeal. He argued that the prosecution examined PW4, the Range Forest Officer and got marked Ex.P5, the certificate issued by him. His testimony does not establish that he could issue a certificate after examining the seized articles. There is no document to show that he had undergone training, section 62-C of the Karnataka Forest Act (for short referred to as ‘the Act’) has not been followed.

4.1. The next point of argument is that the Forest Officer who is said to have seized the sandalwood billets did not comply with sections 62(3) and 71-A of the Act. This is mandatory in view of the judgment of this court in the case of BHANUPPRAKASH A AND ANOTHER vs STATE BY THE ACF, CHIKMAGALORE [ILR 2006 KAR 3216]. Non-compliance of this statutory provision vitiated the entire trial and therefore the accused would be entitled to acquittal. In support of his contention he also relied upon another judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of STATE OF KARNATAKA vs PRAKASH AND OTHERS [(2019) 14 SCC 229].

5. The learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that the evidence given by PW4 discloses that he had been trained to examine the seized articles. When he himself gave evidence, production of a certificate for having undergone training is not necessary. Moreover if his cross-examination is perused, there is nothing to show that he has been discredited in any manner. As regards compliance of section 62(3) read with section 71A of the Act, he argued that Ex.P9 shows the compliance. The learned trial Judge has clearly discussed this aspect of the matter. Therefore, the two grounds urged by the appellants counsel are not very material and he submitted that this appeal deserves to be dismissed.

6. If the judgment of the trial court is perused, it is found that PW4, a Range Forest Officer underwent training in the year 1983-84 and that he had the experience of testing timber, sandalwood billets in number of cases.

Ex.P5 is the certificate issued by him. His evidence cannot be doubted.

6.1. With regard to compliance of sections 62(3) and 71A of the Act, the learned trial Judge has held that PW5 after completion of investigation prepared a report as per Ex.P9 and sent it to the DCF at Koppa. In fact PW5 Rangaswamy obtained permission from DCF, Koppa, for filing charge sheet. These events indicate that