Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
H.P.SANDESH
Madashetty @ Mada, S/o. Venkatashetty – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka, By Nanjanagud Rural Police Station, Mysuru District, Represented By State Public Prosecutor – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the criminal revision petition and convictions. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding the failure to prove seizure and compliance with legal provisions. (Para 4 , 5 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. counterarguments from the respondent and analysis of compliance issues. (Para 6 , 12) |
| 4. court's observations on the necessity of compliance with section 62c. (Para 7 , 11) |
| 5. final judgment and order of acquittal. (Para 8 , 13) |
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.
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 prove its case beyond reasonable doubt as statutory procedures for seizure were not adhered to, resulting in the acquittal of the petitioner.
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....
The prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, resulting in their acquittal.
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.
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....
Insufficient evidence for conviction under forest law due to lack of certified notification and corroboration for confession.
Point of law: Re-appreciation of evidence - Revisional jurisdiction of High Court - In any case it is well settled that the scope of revisional jurisdiction of High Court does not extend to re-apprec....
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
