Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
B. Raju, S/o Doddabellegowda – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conviction under the karnataka forest act. (Para 2 , 3 , 6 , 8) |
| 2. arguments regarding procedural violations in evidence. (Para 9 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. court's observations on evidence and procedural compliance. (Para 15 , 20 , 22 , 24) |
| 4. rationale behind acquittal based on due process. (Para 19 , 26) |
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,
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.
Conviction under the Karnataka Forest Act was overturned due to non-compliance with mandatory provisions regarding evidence of forest produce, specifically the absence of testimony from the Range For....
The prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, resulting in their acquittal.
When evaluating bail, courts must balance the nature of the alleged offence, statutory compliance for seizures, and the petitioner's personal circumstances; strict adherence to statutory requirements....
Presumption u/s 69 is with respect to not a conscious mental state, or a direction by legislature that a certain state of affairs is deemed to exist, but with respect to ownership of property. It was....
Possession of sandalwood exceeding 3 KGs without a license constitutes an offence under Section 87 of the Karnataka Forest Act, and the burden of proof lies on the accused to establish bona fide dome....
Section 62(C) of Karnataka Forest Act reads as certificate of Forest Officer to be an evidence.
The appellate court upheld the trial court's conviction and sentencing of the accused under relevant laws, affirming that minor evidentiary discrepancies do not undermine the prosecution's case.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
