SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Ker) 1200

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
K. Haripal, J.
Roji Augustin – Petitioner
Versus
State Of Kerala Represented By Public Prosecutor And Ors. – Respondents
Bail Appl. No. 2109 of 2021, Bail appl. No. 4823 of 2021
Decided On : 26-07-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Sri.M.P.Ashok Kumar, Bindu Sreedhar Asif N
For the Respondent: Sri. T.A.Shaji, Director General of Prosecution, Spl.Govt. Pleader, Sri.Sandesh Raja for, Sri.P.Narayanan, Addl.Public Prosecutor

Headnote:

Kerala Forest Act, 1961 - Sections 27(i) (d)(e)(iii) & (iv) and Sections 39, 40, 52 and 61A - Kerala Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1975 - Sections 12 and 23 - Biological Diversity Act, 2002 - Sections 2(c)(o) 7, 24 and 25 – Business – Trade license – Applications filed seeking pre-arrest bail – Whether bail can be granted – Held, It is not necessary for the Court to make any comment, sitting in bail jurisdiction, on the argument of the learned counsel that the Government is the real culprit in the entire episode - But it is disturbing that statutory provisions are being infringed by issuing executive directions with impunity - Applications dismissed.

ORDER :

These are applications filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. by the first accused in OR No.1/2021 and accused Nos.2, 3 and 1 respectively in OR No.41/2021, both of Meppadi forest range. The petitioner in Bail Application No.2109/2021 and the third petitioner in the other application are one and the same. They are brothers. Apprehending arrest in these cases, they have moved this Court seeking pre-arrest bail. An interim order has been passed in BA No.2109/2021, by order dated 08.04.2021, directing to release the petitioner on anticipatory bail on execution of bond for Rs.50,000/-. Now the petitioner in BA No.2109/2021 wants to make that order absolute.

2. BA No.2109/2021 is in respect of OR 1/2021 of Meppadi forest range; that occurrence report was registered alleging offence under Sections 27(i) (d)(e)(iii) & (iv) and Sections 39, 40, 52 and 61A of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961, besides under Sections 12 and 23 of the Kerala Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1975. It is submitted that during the course of investigation offence under Sections 2(c)(o) 7, 24 and 25 of the Biological Diversity Act, 2002 also has been incorporated and investigation is going on. OR 41/2021, in which BA No.4823/2021 is filed, was registered alleging offence under Sections 27(1)(d), 39, 40, 52, 61A and 69 of the Forest Act besides under Rules 10 and 23 of the Kerala Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1975.

3. The petitioner in BA No.2109/2021 has contended that he is a trader in timber, proprietor of M/s. Surya Timbers, Wayanad. He obtained trade licence from Muttil Grama Panchayat and also obtained property marks registration under the Kerala Forest Produce Transit Rules from the Divisional Forest Officer, Kalpetta. He is doing business after obtaining necessary permit and property marks registration from the panchayat and the forest officials, respectively. He has also been issued Form IV white permits for the transit of timbers within the State. While so, on 01.02.2021 he purchased 54 logs of rosewood from two persons by name Josekutty and Moly. He had also struck a deal with the Malabar Timbers in Karimugal, Ernakulam and using one of the Form IV white permits issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, those 54 log woods were transported through Lukkidy, Thamarassery and Kozhikode route as permitted in the pass. According to him, the trees were cut by the buyers, i.e. Josekutty and Moly, after obtaining cut permit from the authorities, producing possession certificate and certificate issued by the Village Officer. The said properties are legally owned by his sellers and on that basis both the sellers produced applications before the Forest Range Officer, which were forwarded to the DFO; after the transit copy of the Form IV certificate has already been submitted before the DFO, which is evident from Annexure-3 produced along with the application.

4. He had also drawn e-Way bill showing the details of the GST paid by him; the items were duly delivered to his buyer, M/s.Malabar Timbers, at Karimugal; after completing the deal, the matter was duly intimated to the Divisional Forest Officer, Wayanad. But later, to his utter dismay, on 08.02.2021, the Forest Range Officer, Meppadi filed an Occurrence Report before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Sulthan Bathery, which is Annexure 4. According to the petitioner in BA No.2109/2021, it is a false implication, the allegations are factually incorrect, it is launched with ulterior motive misusing the powers vested in the forest officials, none of the ingredients of the offence are attracted, he has never dealt with a forest produce, he had purchased the rosewood from the said Josekutty and Moly as evidenced from records, for which he had also obtained Form IV pass; the log woods were transited lawfully and that the initiation of criminal proceedings against him is an exhibition of ulterior motive. Th

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    Judicial Analysis

    SupremeToday

    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    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

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top