The prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt as statutory procedures for seizure were not adhered to, resulting in the acquittal of the petitioner.

ORDER :

ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE, J.

This petition is arising against the concurrent findings of conviction and sentence.

2. Petitioner is tried and convicted for an offence under Section 87 of The Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 (for short 'Act, 1963'). Petitioner is sentenced to simple imprisonment for 3 years and also directed to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-.

3. The appeal filed by the petitioner before the Sessions Court is also dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence. Hence, the present revision petition.

4. This petition was earlier dismissed by this Court and the petitioner filed Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In terms of the order dated 28.03.2025, Special Leave Petition was allowed and the matter is remitted to this Court for fresh consideration and the Apex Court noticed that the petition was disposed of without hearing the counsel for the petitioner, who was not present when the case was listed for hearing.

5. Hence, the matter is placed before this Court for fresh consideration.

6. Prosecution alleged that on 23.08.2001, the Foresters of Basrikatte and Jayapura were on duty and when they were near Makkikoppa Bus Stand, they found two persons moving suspiciously and one among them was holding a plastic bag and the other was holding a gunny bag. The forest officials claim that when they made enquiry, both of them tried to run away. Prosecution claims that both persons were caught hold off by the forest officials and when the plastic bag was opened, they found Sandalwood billets. It is stated that the person who was holding plastic bag is accused No.1 and accused No.2 was holding gunny bag containing sandalwood pieces. Forest officials after investigation have filed the charge sheet.

7. Accused did not plead guilty and they were tried. Before the Trial Court, prosecution examined 6 witnesses and produced five documents marked as Exs.P.1 and 5. The material objects are produced as MOs.1 to 7.

8. After considering the evidence on record, the Trial Court found that both accused are guilty of offence under Section 87 of the Act, 1963 and imposed sentence of three years simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/- each. The Sessions Court has dismissed the appeal.

9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would urge that Section 62 -C of the Act, 1963 mandates that the person who is issuing the certificate under the Act, 1963, regarding the specified forest produce is required to be an Officer above the rank of the Range Forest Officer and also he is required to undergo training for the said purpose.

10. Learned Counsel for the accused contends that person who issued the certificate at Ex.P.5, and who has been examined, does not claim that he has undergone the training. Thus, it is contended that Ex.P.5 - the alleged certificate issued underSection 62 -C of the Act, 1963 is not proved and once it is not proved, the prosecution should fail and the petitioner ought to have been acquitted.

11. It is also urged that that contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution is not taken note of by the Trial Court and the Sessions Court and those contradictions would clearly demonstrate that the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioner would urge that the mandatory requirement under Section 62 (3) of Act, 1963 is not complied inasmuch as after the alleged seizure of sandal wood from the petitioner, the forest officials have not reported the matter to the authority under Section 71-A of the Act, 1963.

13. In addition, the learned counsel for the petitioner would also urge that the complaint is not filed and entire case is in