DATED

14.07.2015

PASSED

BY

IV

ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SHIMOGA,

SITTING AT BHADRAVATHI IN CRL.A.NO.91/2013.

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION, COMING ON FOR

FINAL

HEARING,

THIS

DAY,

COURT

MADE

FOLLOWING:

- 3 -

ORDER

This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the

petitioners, being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and

order of sentence dated 12.03.2013 in C.C.No.4248/2009 on

the file of the Court of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC,

Bhadravathi and its confirmation judgment and order dated

14.07.2015 in Crl.A.No.91/2013 on the file of the Court of IV

Additional District and Sessions Judge, Shimoga, Sitting at

Bhadravathi, seeking to set aside the concurrent findings

recorded by the Courts below, wherein the petitioners /

accused Nos.1 to 4 were convicted for the offence punishable

under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and

sentencing them to undergo simple imprisonment for one year;

for the offence under Section 104-A of the Karnataka Forest Act

(for short ‘Act’) and sentencing them to undergo simple

imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-

each, in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional

simple imprisonment for 3 months and for the offence under

Rule 144 read with Rule 165 of the Karnataka Forest Rules (for

short ‘Rules’) and sentencing them to pay a fine of Rs.500/-

- 4 -

each, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple

imprisonment for one month.

The petitioners are the accused before the Trial

Court and appellants before the Appellate Court.

Brief facts of the case are as under:

It is the case of the prosecution that, on

03.10.2009 at about 12.15 a.m. in the midnight, when PW.1

and PW.2 were on patrolling duty at Ujjanipura Check Post, at

that time, one luggage Auto bearing its registration No.KA-14-

A-4193 was coming from Barandur side. On intercepting the

said vehicle, they found five rose wood logs were being

transported. On enquiry, the accused persons have disclosed

that, it was being transported without any license nor any

permit. Immediately, the accused persons were apprehended

and they have been produced before CW.5-Sub-Inspector of

Police. A case came to be registered against the accused.

After investigation, charge sheet was submitted by the police.

To

prove

the

case

of

the

prosecution,

the

prosecution examined, in all, 5 witnesses namely PWs.1 to 5

- 5 -

and got marked Exhibits P1 to P12. On the other hand, the

accused have not led any evidence nor marked any documents

on their behalf. The Trial Court after appreciating the oral and

documentary evidence on record, convicted the petitioners for

the offences stated supra. Being aggrieved by the same, the

petitioners preferred an appeal before the Appellate Court, the

Appellate Court confirmed the judgment of conviction rendered

by the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the same, the

petitioners have preferred this revision petition seeking to set

aside the concurrent findings.

5.

Heard Shri Umesh P.B., learned counsel appearing

on behalf of Sri.R.B.Deshpande, learned counsel for the

petitioners

and

Shri

Rahul

Rai.K.,

learned

High

Court

Government Pleader for the respondent – State.

6.

It is the submission of learned counsel for the

petitioners that, the judgment of conviction and order of

sentence passed by the Trial Court and its confirmation order

passed by the Appellate Court require to be set aside as the

concurrent findings are perverse, illegal and opposed to facts

and law.

- 6 -

7.

It is the submission of the learned counsel for the

petitioners that, all the witnesses are official witnesses. PW.3

being a independent witness to the seizure mahazar and spot

mahazar turned hostile and not supported the case of the

prosecution. In the absence of the evidence of the independent

witness with respect to the seizure of alleged five rose wood

logs should have been treated as doubtful and benefit of doubt

should have been extended to the petitioners. Not extending

t