The courts upheld convictions under forest law for unlawful trespass and confirmed reasonable sentencing based on judicial findings.

O R D E R

The concurrent findings of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II (Forest Offences), Punalur, and the Additional Sessions Court (Adhoc-II), Kollam, in C.C.No. 392/2004 & Crl.A.No.7/2008 respectively, convicting and sentencing the petitioners for the commission of offences under Sections 27 (1)(e)(iii) & 27(1)(e)(iv) of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961 , are under challenge in this revision petition.

2. The prosecution case is that on 29.04.2004, the petitioners trespassed into the reserve forest coming under Thenmala Range of Ayyappankavu Reserve, and attempted to cut down and remove reeds, causing a loss to the tune of Rs.2,000/- to the Government. In connection with the aforesaid offences, the Forest Range Officer, Thenmala, laid the final report before the learned Magistrate.

3. In the trial before the learned Magistrate, the prosecution examined four witnesses as PW1 to PW4, and brought on record seven documents as Exts P1 to P7. MO1 series were also identified as material objects. After analysing the aforesaid evidence, the learned Magistrate found the petitioners guilty of the commission of the aforesaid offences, and accordingly, convicted them. The petitioners were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year, and fine of Rs.1,000/- each, for each of the above offences. A default clause of simple imprisonment for two months was provided for non-payment of the fine. Though the petitioners challenged the above verdict before the Appellate Court, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, who considered the appeal, declined to interfere with the findings of the learned Magistrate. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the above concurrent verdicts of the courts below, the petitioners are here before this Court with this revision petition.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader representing the Forest Department.

5. The Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court placed heavy reliance upon the evidence tendered by PW1 to PW4, who are Forest Officials, to arrive at the finding that the petitioners committed the offences alleged against them. On going through the case records and the reasonings adopted by the courts below in the impugned judgments, I find no reason to interfere with the aforesaid findings of the courts below. The Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court came to the conclusion about the commission of offences by the petitioners upon sound judicial reasoning. The concurrent findings in the above regard cannot be dislodged, in exercise of the revisional powers under Section

397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

6. As regards the sentence portion of the impugned judgments, it is seen that the courts below have imposed only the minimum punishment provided for the offence as per law. Having regard to the nature and gravity of the offence involved, it cannot be said that the aforesaid punishment is disproportionate to the nature of the offence committed by the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners had already undergone imprisonment for a certain period, and that the judgments rendered by the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court, have not made it clear that the aforesaid period of imprisonment which they have undergone during pre-trial stage, has to be set off. If the petitioners had undergone detention in judicial custody for any period during the pre-trial stage, they are entitled to set off for the aforesaid period of custody.

In the result, the revision petition stands dismissed, c