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 Forest Officer.

ORDER :

H.P. SANDESH, J.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent.

2. This revision petition is filed challenging the order of conviction and sentence of the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 87 of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 read with Section 379 of IPC, wherein the Trial Court convicted and sentenced the petitioner for the above offence for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further four months simple imprisonment and the same has been challenged before the Appellate Court and the Appellate Court also confirmed the said order.

3. Being aggrieved by the said order, the same is challenged before this Court.

4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court is that the very case of the prosecution before the Trial Court is that this petitioner was apprehended along with 15 kgs. of sandalwood pieces i.e., 81 pieces. On 08.07.2002 on credible information at around 12.30 p.m. conducted the raid and two persons were coming from Gundlupet in a scooter and arrested both of them in Crime No.185/2002. The investigation was conducted and filed the charge sheet against accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 86 and 87 of the Karnataka Forest Act read with Section 379 of IPC. The prosecution in order to prove the charges leveled against the petitioner herein examined five witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.5 and got marked the documents at Exs.P.1 to and M.O.1 to M.O.4 are identified. The petitioner was subjected to 313 statement and the Trial Court having considered the material on record convicted and sentenced the petitioner to undergo sentence of two years with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo four months simple imprisonment and the same has been confirmed by the Appellate Court.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that both the Courts failed to take note of the material on record and committed an error and seizure was not proved in accordance with law. P.W.1 and P.W.2 have stated that no identification marks and numbers were given to the sandalwood billets in their presence. The learned counsel contend that the Range Forest Officer has not been examined before the Trial Court and in order to prove their case relied upon Ex.P.4 certificate. The Investigation Officer has not produced the notification issued by the Government to show that the Range Forest Officer has undergone training and notified to exercise the powers as prescribed under Section 62C of the Karnataka Forest Act. There is no compliance of mandatory provisions of law. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of RAGHAVENDRACHARI v. STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in ILR 2010 KAR 3382 and contend that when there is no compliance, the very order of conviction and sentence is not sustainable in the eye of law. Both the Courts failed to take note of Sections 62C and 87 of the Karnataka Forest Act and hence it requires interference of this Court.

6. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent State admits that the Range Forest Officer was not examined before the Trial Court. However, contend that sandalwood pieces 81 in number weighing 15 kgs. were seized at the instance of this petitioner and other accused has not preferred any appeal and only this petitioner has challenged the order. The learned counsel contend that though the Tr