IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON9BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. SUDHINDRARAO

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.595/2012

BETWEEN:

BABU

S/O SHEKARAPPA

AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS

R/O HALUGUDDE VILLAGE

HOSANAGARA TALUK

SHIMOGA.

...PETITIONER

(BY SMT.VIJAYA M N, ADVOCATE)

AND:

STATE,

BY RFO SAGAR RANGE

SAGAR.

..RESPONDENT

(BY SMT.K P YASHODHA, HCGP)

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED

UNDER SECTION 397 CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE

JUDGMENT

DATED:19.7.2010

PASSED

BY

THE

ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, FIRST CLASS AT

SAGAR IN C.C.No.151/2005, AND JUDGMENT AND ORDER

DATED:27.1.2012 PASSED BY THE PO, FTC, SAGAR IN

CRL.A

No.79/2010

AND

ACQUIT

THE

PETITONER/ACCUSED,

BY

ALLOWING

THE

REVISION

PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

2

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON

FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE

FOLLOWING:

ORDER

This petition is directed against the judgment

dated 27.1.2012 passed by the Presiding Officer, Fast

Track Court, Sagar in Crl.A. No.79/2010, wherein, the

appeal came to be dismissed confirming the judgment

and order dated 19.7.2010 passed by the learned

Additional

Civil

Judge

&

JMFC

Sagar

in

C.C.No.151/2005.

2.

The

brief

facts

of

the

case

are,

On 30-08-2004 one Hanumanthappa Forester has

received the credible information that two persons

involved in the sale of snake skin near the road

leading to Varadamoola through Chipli Lingadahalli.

On the said information, he has proceeded along with

his other forest officials to Chipli Lingadahalli road,

where they found two persons in front of the house of

3

one Akilesh standing by the side of the road holding

bags when they searched they found four snakes skin

in the plastic bad and they were seized under mahazar

and apprehended those persons and registered a case

against them for the offence punishable under

sections 9, 39,44,50,51 of the Wild Life Protection Act.

3. On completion of investigation, charge sheet

came to be filed by the investigation officer. The

learned trial judge took cognizance of the aforesaid

offences and registered the case against the accused.

However, after hearing the accused charges were

framed for the offences punishable under Section 9

and 44 of the Act. The accused pleaded not guilty and

claims to be tried.

4. The learned trial judge was accommodated

with the oral evidence of PWs 1 to 6 and documentary

evidence of Exs.P1 to P9 on behalf of the prosecution.

4

However,

no

oral

or

documentary

evidence

is

adduced or produced by the accused.

5. Upon conclusion of the trail, learned trial

judge found the accused persons not guilty for the

offence punishable under Section 44 of the Wild Life

Protection Act and convicted them for the offence

punishable under Section 9 of the said Act and

sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for a

period of 3 years and pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each

for the offence punishable under Section 9 of the Wild

Life Protecting Act and in default of payment of fine,

accused shall undergo SI for a period of three months.

6. Being aggrieved by the same, accused

preferred an appeal which came to be dismissed by

the learned appellate judge. Being aggrieved by the

same, accused No.2 has presented this petition and

accused No.1 has not preferred any revision. Neither

5

the learned counsel for the petitioner nor the learned

HCGP have any information about accused No.1.

7. Among the witnesses examined, the evidence

of PW1-T.Hanumanthappa is that, he is a retired

Forest guard on the date of his examination. He has

spoken to the effect that on 30-08-2004 receiving

information about two persons involved in sale of

snakea skin at Chipli Lingadahalli road and when they

went to the spot near the house of one Akilesh,

accused persons were present and when searched the

house, they found four snake skins