Point of Law: 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 further held that seizure of goods ipso facto does not mean that accused had conscious knowledge about their illicit nature or origin, or that accused's inability to account for a transit pass, implied that they procured goods illegally thus attracting S.27.

ORDER :

This criminal revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 12th August, 2005 passed by the Sessions Court, Kozhikode (for short, ‘the appellate Court’) confirming the judgment dated 13th February, 2004 in CC No.36/1996 passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Thalasserry (in short, ‘the trial Court’).

2. The revision petitioner is the managing partner of Punjab Aromatics, Kozhikode, a partnership firm engaged in manufacturing and sale of sandal wood oil. On 31/10/1994, the Divisional Forest Officer, Vanasree, Mathottam, Kozhikode along with his party conducted a surprise inspection in the factory of Punjab Aromatics and seized 349 kgs of sandalwood oil stored in the godown. On 8/11/1994, a search was conducted at the premises of Punjab Aromatics and certain documents were seized. Thereafter, on 15/11/1994, samples from the seized sandalwood oil were drawn and forwarded to the chemical examiner, Customs House at Kochi. After conducting enquiry, a complaint was filed against the revision petitioner who was found to be in possession of the sandalwood oil and in charge and responsible for the conduct of the business of the firm for the offences punishable u/s 27(1)(d) and 27(1)(e) of the Kerala Forest Act at the trial Court. The complaint was taken on file as CC No.36/1996.

3. The revision petitioner appeared on summons at the trial Court. He was furnished with copies of the relevant documents. After hearing both sides, charge was framed against the revision petitioner u/s 27(1)(d) and 27(1)(e)(iii) of the Kerala Forest Act. The charge was read over and explained to the revision petitioner who pleaded not guilty.

4. The prosecution examined PWs 1 to 7 and marked Exts.P1 to P7. The revision petitioner was questioned u/s 313 of Cr.P.C. He denied all the incriminating circumstances brought against him during evidence. On the side of the defence, DW1 and DW2 were examined and Exts.D1 to D6 were marked.

5. Considering the evidence on record, the trial Court found the revision petitioner guilty u/s 27(1)(d) of the Kerala Forest Act and he was convicted for the said offence. The revision petitioner was found not guilty for the offence u/s 27(1)(e)(iii) and he was acquitted of the said charge. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months u/s 27(1)(d) of the Kerala Forest Act. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, the revision petitioner preferred appeal at the appellate Court as Crl.Appeal No.153/2004. The appellate Court as per the judgment dated 12/8/2005 dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence of the trial Court. Challenging the said conviction and sentence passed by the courts below, the revision petitioner has preferred this revision petition.

6. I have heard Sri.M.Ramesh Chander, the learned Senior Counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.Sanal P.Raj, the learned Public Prosecutor.

7. The learned Senior Counsel for the revision petitioner impeached the findings of the Court below and resultant finding as to the guilt mainly on two grounds; (i) The prosecution thoroughly failed to prove that the forest produce (sandalwood oil) seized from the possession of the revision petitioner was illicitly removed from the Reserved Forest and, hence, no ingredients of S.27(1)(d) are established. (ii) The firm Punjab Aromatics purchased the red oil (oil extracted by natural process of exudation) from hawkers as per bills and the same was processed in the factory for which the firm was issued proper license (Ext.D5) and the sandalwood oil seized from the premises of the firm was a legitimate stock. The Courts below committed serious illegality in convicting the revision petitioner overlooking these vital points, submitted the Senior Counsel. The learned Senior Counsel heavily relied on a recent decision of the Apex Court (between the same parties) in Bharath Boosh