Prosecution must prove conscious possession of illicitly obtained forest produce to sustain conviction under relevant sections of the Kerala Forest Amendment Act.

1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment in Crl.A No.299/2003 dated 23.12.2004 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court, Fast Track Court No.I, (Ad hoc), Manjeri (for short ''the appellate court), confirming the judgment in C.C.No.21/2001 dated 8.8.2003 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court II (Forest Offences), Manjeri (for short ''the trial court'').

2. The appellants / accused faced trial for an offence punishable under S.27(1)(e)(IV) and (iii) and Section (1)(d) of the Kerala Forest Amendment Act (for short ''the Act.'')

3. The prosecution case in short is that the accused were found unauthorisedly keeping the forest produce (timber), which was the subject matter of O.R.No.7/1998 and O.R.No.8/1998 of Karuvarakundu Forest Station, consisting 162 pieces of teak in a room occupied by them and thereby committed the offence.

4. Both the accused appeared at the trial court. They were furnished with the copies of all relevant records. On the side of the prosecution, PWs 1 to 4 were examined and Exts.P1 to P9 were marked. After hearing both sides, charge was framed against the accused under S.27(1)(e)(IV) and (iii) and S.27(1)(d) of the Act. The charge was read over and explained to the accused who pleaded not guilty.

5. Thereafter PWs1 to 4 were recalled and they were cross examined and Exts.P1 to P9 were marked. After closing the prosecution evidence, the accused were questioned under S.313 Cr.P.C. They denied all the incriminating circumstances brought against them during evidence. On the side of the defence, one witness was examined as DW1 and Exts.D1 and D2 were marked.

6. On an appreciation of the evidence, the courts below found the accused guilty under S.27(1)(e)(IV) and (iii) and S.27(1)(d) of the Act and convicted them for the aforesaid offence. The accused were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month each under S.27(1)(e)(iv) of the Act, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month each under S.27(1)(e)(iii) of the Act and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month each under S.27(1)
(d) of the Act. The judgments of conviction and sentence passed by both the courts below are under challenge in this revision petition.

7. I have heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.

8. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners impeached the findings of the courts below and the resultant finding as to the guilt mainly on three grounds - (i) The prosecution failed to prove the ownership or possession of the room from where the timber were seized. (ii) The prosecution did not succeed in proving that the timber seized were one involved in O.R.Nos.7/2008 and 8/2008. (iii) At any rate, there is nothing on record to show the conscious knowledge on the part of the accused.

9. The learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand supported the findings and pleadings handed down by the courts below and argued that necessary ingredients of S.27(1)(e)(IV) and (iii) and Section (1)(d) of the Act had been established and the prosecution has succeeded in proving the case beyond reasonable doubt.

10. The prosecution mainly relied on the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 and Exts.P1 to P9 to