Non-production of seized properties during trial can be fatal to the prosecution's case.

This revision is filed by the accused in C.C.No.761 of 1994 on the file of the Special Judicial Magistrate (for Sandalwood Offences), Salem, challenging the judgment dated 28.6.2002 and made in Criminal Appeal No.23 of 2000 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court No.1), Salem, confirming the conviction and sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment and the fine of Rs.5,000/- on each counts, in default to undergo six months simple imprisonment each for the offences under Section 21(d) and (f) of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882.

2. The Forest Range Officer, Servarayan South Range, Salem, filed a complaint that on 29.3.1992 at 5.00 a.m. while checking Kurumbappatti, Kappukadu, Thekkappatti and Aruvankurai forest region by P.W.2, the Forest Ranger, Jayapal, the Forester, Munusamy and David, the Forest Rangers and Perumal, Rajendran and Ramadass, the Forest Guards, headed by him; the accused along with Sudhakar and Chinnakannan by trespassing into the forest found transporting sandalwood weighing 196.500 kilo grams in Ambassador Car bearing registration No.TAB 1437; under Sections 21(d) and (f), 35 and 36 of Forest Act, 1882; Rules 3 and 7 of Tamil Nadu Sandalwood Possession Rules, 1970 and Rule 3 of Tamil Nadu Sandalwood Transit Rules, 1967.

3. The case against the other two accused were split up.

4. In the trial in respect of the revision petitioner, Seerangan, the Special Judicial Magistrate (for Sandalwood Cases), Salem, considering the evidence adduced on the side of the complainant through P.Ws.1 and 2 and Exs.P-1 to P-8 and also the evidence of the accused as D.W.1 and accepting the case of the complainant as proved as per such evidence, found the revision petitioner guilty and accordingly convicted and sentenced as set out above. In the appeal in C.A.No.23 of 2000 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court No.I), Salem, the conviction and sentence has been confirmed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge which made the revision petitioner/accused to prefer this revision.

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/accused and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/accused vehemently contended that the conviction and sentence awarded to the revision petitioner/accused is not proper, in view of the fact the respondent failed to prove the charges levelled against the accused, inasmuch as the properties seized, viz., sandalwood and Ambassador Car had not been produced before the Special Judicial Magistrate (for sandalwood offences), Salem. The learned counsel also submitted that the respondent/complainant failed to prove the place of occurrence as reserve forest warranting prosecution under the Forest Act. The learned counsel also argued that P.W.1 being the complainant, the investigation made by him and filing of the complaint is not proper. The learned counsel also pointed out that the delay in producing the properties before the Judicial Magistrate Court between 29.3.1992 to 2.4.1992 and thereafter, has not been satisfactorily explained. It is further contended by the learned counsel that it is not proved that the properties actually seized from the accused alone were produced in the Court of Judicial Magistrate and taken back since the properties have not been identified by the witness in the Court of Judicial Magistrate on production of such properties.

7. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) argued that inasmuch as the revision petitioner/accused gave confession statement Ex.P-1 admitting the offence and the properties, viz., sandalwood and Ambassador Car also have been seized under mahazar Ex.P-2 and the area is forest area as per Government Notification Ex.P-5, the learned Special Judicial Magistrate (for sandalwood offences) and the trial Court considering such documents and also the ev