Conviction upheld under the Kerala Forest Act for cutting reserved trees, but sentences modified due to defendant's prolonged prosecution.

O R D E R

The petitioner is the accused No.1 in C.C.No.19 of 2007 on the files of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Devikulam (for short 'the trial court'). The said case arose out of a complaint preferred by the Forest Range Officer, Marayoor, alleging offences punishable under Sections 27(1)(e)(iii) and (iv) of the Kerala Forest Act .

2. The allegation in the complaint is that accused Nos.1 to 5 trespassed into Karayoor No.II S.R., a portion of the reserved forest at Karayoor, known as Kundakad on 10.06.2002, cut two sandalwood trees and attempted to remove the same causing a loss of Rs.18,000/- to the Government.

3. The case was originally taken on file as C.C.No.212 of

2003. The petitioner was the accused No.4 therein. In C.C.No.212 of 2003, accused Nos.1 to 3 alone faced trial. Since the accused No.4 (the petitioner herein) and the accused No.5 therein did not appear, the case against them was split up and refiled as C.C.No.19 of 2007. Thereafter, the petitioner alone appeared in the said case and faced trial.

4. On the side of the prosecution, PWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exts.P1 to P3 were marked. MO1 was identified. No defence evidence was adduced. After trial, the trial court found the petitioner guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 27(1)(e)(iii) and (iv) of the Kerala Forest Act and he was convicted for the said offences. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 27(1)(e)(iii) of the Kerala Forest Act . He was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 10 days for the offence punishable under Section 27(1)(e)(iv) of the Kerala Forest Act . The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The petitioner preferred Crl.A.No.126 of 2011 before the Sessions Court, Thodupuzha (for short 'appellate court') challenging the conviction and sentence of the trial court. The appellate court confirmed the conviction and sentence of the trial court and dismissed the appeal. This revision petition has been filed challenging the judgments of the trial court as well as the appellate court.

5. I have heard Sri.Thomas J.Anakkallunkal, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.E.C.Bineesh, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.

6. The learned counsel further submitted that the conviction was based mainly on the evidence of official witnesses and no independence witness was examined. The counsel further submitted that Ext.P3 notification, showing that the forest in question was a reserved forest, has not been legally proved.

Reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in Vinod and others v. State of Kerala ( MANU/KE/0531/2016 ). The counsel also submitted that the failure on the part of the prosecution to produce the seized sandalwood trees is fatal to the prosecution case. Reliance was placed on the decision of this Court inAbdurahiman v. State of Kerala ( MANU/KE/0454/2020 ). The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, supported the findings and verdict handed down by the trial court as well as the appellate court and argued that the necessary ingredients of Sections 27(1)(e)(iii) and (iv) of the Kerala Forest Act have been established and the prosecution had succeeded in proving the case beyond reasonable doubt.

7. The prosecution relied on the oral evidence of PWs 1 to 3 and Exts.P1 to P3 to prove its case and to fix the culpability on