Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
B.RAJENDRAN, J.
Dhakshnamoorthy - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Criminal Revision Case No.1098 of 2010 and M.P.No. 1 of 2010
Decided on : 20-07-2015
Forest Offence - Jurisdiction - Tamil Nadu Forest Act - Section 21, 35, 36(A) r/w.(E) - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, particularly Section 41 and 49, which impose obligations on the Forest Department regarding the seizure and production of forest wealth. The court also referred to the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Kashmiri Lal vs. State of Haryana, emphasizing that non-production of seized goods will not vitiate the case of the prosecution if the seizure is duly recorded and the goods are identified. The court also cited the decision in Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Calicut vs. V.P. Sayed Mohammed, highlighting the importance of the officials' skill in identifying the seized forest wealth. Additionally, the court discussed the decision in Seerangan vs. Forest Range Officer, Salem, emphasizing the requirement to produce seized goods during trial. The court also referred to the decision in Kumar and others vs. State represented by Forest Range Officer, Vellore District, discussing the extension of the Probation of Offenders Act in similar circumstances.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner and two others were convicted for trespassing into a forest, damaging forest produce, and possessing sandalwood without authorization. The petitioner contested the jurisdiction of the prosecution and the validity of the evidence, while seeking release under the Probation of Offenders Act due to exemplary behavior and family responsibilities.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution had established the offence beyond reasonable doubt, emphasizing the proper seizure and identification of the sandalwood. The court rejected the petitioner's jurisdictional challenge and declined to extend the Probation of Offenders Act due to the substantial quantity of seized sandalwood.
Issues: The issues included the jurisdiction of the prosecution, validity of evidence, and the eligibility for release under the Probation of Offenders Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the proper seizure and identification of the sandalwood, as well as the compliance with statutory obligations, validated the prosecution's case. The court also emphasized the substantial quantity of seized sandalwood in rejecting the petitioner's request for release under the Probation of Offenders Act.
Final Decision: The court confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner by the Appellate Court, dismissing the Criminal Revision Petition and closing the connected Miscellaneous Petition.
ORDER :
The petitioner along with two others were arrayed as accused in C.C. No. 537 of 1998 on the file of the learned Special Judicial Magistrate, Thirupattur, Vellore District. The accused were tried for the offence punishable under Section 21 (d), (e), (f) and 35 and 36 (A) r/w.(E) of Tamil Nadu Forest Act (Act V of 1982) and after trial, they were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 36 (A) r/w. (E) of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and also to pay a fine of Rs.7,500/- each, failing which, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. On appeal, such conviction passed against the accused was confirmed by the Appellate Court and the sentence alone is modified directing the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- each in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months for the offence under Section 36(A) r/w.(E) of Tamil Nadu Forest Act. As against the aforesaid decision of the Court below, the present Criminal Revision Case is filed by only one accused viz., Dhakshnamoorthy.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 05.08.1997, under the leadership of P.W.1, Foresters went for a raid. When they were inspecting in Valasamalai Reserve Forest near Mullakadu, they saw the accused trespassed into the forest and damaged the forest produce viz., Sandal Wood and were in possession of 551 kgms of sandal wood and it's value was estimated to be around Rs.2,47,950/-. The accused gave a voluntary confession relating to the occurrence and based on such confession, the case in S.T.O.R. No. 35 of 1997 came to be filed against three persons, including the petitioner. On the same day, the officials of the respondent have prepared Form 'H' (Ex.P.1) as well as Form 95' (Ex.P.6). Immediately after the occurrence, the sandal wood logs were produced before the Authorised Officer along with Form 'H' and Form 95' prepared by the respondent and the Authorised Officer also acknowledged it. The seized sandalwood logs were also assigned with a number for identity. Then the accused was sent to the Court and was remanded to judicial custody.
3. Assailing the judgment of the Courts below, Mr.M.Krishnamoorthy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the prosecution failed to prove that the occurrence took place in the reserved forest area. In other words, according to the counsel for the petitioner, the occurrence took place in an area which was not notified as a reserved forest and therefore, the respondent has no jurisdiction to either register a case or to proceed further in the case. The Courts below has failed to take note of this important aspect which led to miscarriage of justice. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further contend that the seized wooden logs, alleged to be sandalwood, have not been produced before the trial court soon after it's seizure. Mere production of Form 'H' or Form 95' will not be an evidence to show that the respondent has only seized sandalwood from the possession of the petitioner. It is further contended that the driver has not been examined on the side of the prosecution and similarly, the two attesting witnesses were not examined and therefore, the non-examination of witnesses is fatal to the case projected by the prosecution. He would further add that the mere confession given to the Forest Officer is inadmissible in evidence.
4. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of this Court in the case of (Seerangan vs. Forest Range Officer, Salem) 2005 Criminal Law Journal 987 and also the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court rendered in (Ashok @ Dangra Jaiswal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh) (2011) 5 Supreme Court Cases 123 to drive home the point that non-production of the seized goods before the court below is fatal to the case of the prosecution.
5. Notwithstanding the above submission, the learned cou
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
