IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 760 OF 2013 (C)

BETWEEN:

OBALAIAH AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS S/O LATE NALLAPPA JODIKALLENAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, CN HALLI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT.

…APPELLANT (BY SMT. SHRUTHI S., ADV. FOR SRI. VINAYA KEERTHY M., ADV.)

AND:

STATE BY C N HALLI POLICE TUMAKURU DISTRICT REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT, BENGALOORU.

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. B. LAKSHMAN, HCGP)

Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYAN N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAK A THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 13.03.2013 PASSED BY THE P.O., F.T.C., TIPTUR IN S.C.NO.218/2012 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 379 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SEC.86 AND 87 OF KARNATAKA FOREST ACT AND ETC.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ARGUMENTS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Appellant-accused No.1 before the trial Court has preferred appeal against the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 13^th March, 2013 passed in SC No.218 of

2012 by the Fast Track Court at Tiptur.

2. Factual matrix of the prosecution case are that on the intervening night of 18/19^th September, 2010 at about 2.00 am in the land of CW5-Srikantaiah at Jodikallenahalli, accused 1 and 2, with a common intention, intending to take dishonestly the sandalwood from the lands, cut and uprooted the sandalwood tree belonging to government from the said lands without the consent of government and without any license from Government. On 19^th September 2010, at about 9.00 am, when PW5 and his staff were on patrolling duty at Matighatta Gate, in front of petrol bunk at Kuppur Road in Chikkanyakanahalli, accused 1 and 2 were transporting four sandalwood billets totally weighing 11.95 kg worth about Rs.1,000/- in a plastic bag and thereby have committed the offences punishable under section 379 of Indian Penal Code read with sections 86 and 87 of Karnataka Forest Act. This led to registration of first information report and investigation. After receipt of charge-sheet, the trial court committed the case to the court of Session. The sessions court after securing the accused, framed charges for the aforesaid offences. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined five witnesses as PW1 to 5 and got marked four documents as per Exhibits P1 to P4 and six materials as MOs1 to 6. The statement of the accused under section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. The accused have totally denied the evidence prosecution witnesses. The trial Court, after hearing the arguments, convicted accused 1 and 2 for the offences punishable under sections 86 and 87 of the Karnataka Forest Act and section 379 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order in sentence passed by the trial court, accused No.1 has preferred this appeal.

3. Smt. Shruti S, learned advocate appearing for Sri Vinaykeerti M, would contend that the independent witnesses PWs1 and 2 have not supported the case of the prosecution. Except the evidence of police witness PW3-Range Forest Officer, there is no evidence to prove the seizure of sandalwood billets. Prosecution has not produced any revenue records to show that the alleged spot where sandalwood trees were grown, belong to PW2. The certificate Exhibit P3 issued by PW3 is not in accordance with law and therefore, there is non- compliance of section 62C of the Karnataka Forest Act. Hence, in the absence of compliance of statutory provisions, the conviction of the accused No.1 for offences under aforestated sections cannot be sustained. She further submit that this court in criminal appeal No.501 of 2013 disposed of on 19^th August, 2024 has already acquitted accused No.2. She has also produced the copy of the judgment. On all these grounds sought to allow this appe