Madras High CourtCRL RC(MD)/127/2017allowed

Selvamani, v. State Rep. By

2023-03-23Honourable Mr Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan8 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 23.03.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN 1.Selvamani 2.Nesamani

...Petitioners/A1 & A2

Vs.

State represented by The Forest Range Officer, Boothapandi Forest Range, Kanniyakumari District.

(O.R.160/999)

...Respondent

Prayer : This Criminal Revision has been filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records in Crl.A.No.86 of 2008, dated 01.07.2016 on the file of the Mahila Court (Fast Track Court), Nagercoil, confirming the judgment passed in C.C.No.159 of 2008 on the file of the Special Court (Forest Cases), Nagercoil, dated 30.05.2008 and set aside the same.

For Petitioners : Mr.R.Jegadeeswaran For Respondent : Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi Government Advocate (Crl.side) 1/8

ORDER

The Petition has been filed to set-aside the order made in Crl.A.No.86 of 2008, dated 01.07.2016 on the file of the Mahila Court (Fast Track Court), Nagercoil, confirming the judgment passed in C.C.No.159 of 2008 on the file of the Special Court (Forest Cases), Nagercoil, dated 30.05.2008.

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 06.12.1999 at about 08.00 a.m., the petitioners without any permission carried Eetti trees (Eetti Maram) on their head at Poigai Reserved Forest, Aralvaimozhi Beat within the jurisdiction of Kulathuvizhai. When the respondent and his team on surveillance of the said area, found that the petitioners were carrying Eetti sticks and seized the trees from the petitioners. After recording their statements, the respondent prepared a complaint and after completion of investigation, filed a final report and the same was taken cognizance by the trial Court. In order to prove the case, the respondent had examined PW1 to PW5 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P6 and also produced M.O.1. On the side of the petitioners, no one was examined and no document was marked in order to disprove the charge levelled as against them. The trial Court found that the petitioners were 2/8

guilty for the offences under Section 21 (d)(e)(f) of Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882 and Section 3 of Amendment Act 1, 1995 and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.7,500/- each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners preferred an appeal and the same was also dismissed by the first appellate Court by confirming the conviction and sentence. Hence, the present revision.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that even according to the case of the prosecution, the petitioners cut down 19 trees, in which, already 17 trees had been taken away from the respondent. They hidden two trees of Eetti trees and when they were taken from the hidden place and proceeded to their place, they were got hold and filed a complaint. Further the respondent failed to produce other 17 Eetti trees in order to prove their case and also to connect with the trees, which were allegedly seized from the petitioners and the whereabouts of these trees till not now. Therefore, it is clearly a put up case as against the petitioners only for statistical purpose. He further submitted that though the respondent charge sheeted that the petitioners 3/8

were carrying Eetti trees in the reserved forest area, they failed to produce any declaration or notification to identify to the effect that the scene of occurrence is the reserved forest area. They also failed to produce any material to show that the seized trees are Eetti trees. Therefore, the entire conviction and sentence cannot be sustained as against the petitioners and it is liable to be set aside.

4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the respondent submitted that admittedly, both the petitioners were found in possession of two Eetti trees. After seizure of the Eetti trees, they recorded confession statement of the petitioners and registered the case as against the petitioners. After completion of investigation, they filed a final report. In order to prove the charge, they had examined PW1 to PW5 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 and seized the Eetti trees, which were marked as M.O.1. Therefore, both the Courts found them guilty and sentenced them under Forest Act. Hence, it does not warrant any interference by this Court and prayed for dismissal of this petition.

4/8

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the respondent.

6. The petitioners are arrayed as Accused Nos.1 and 2. According to the respondent, both the petitioners/A1 & A2 were carrying two Eetti trees on their head at Poigai Reserved Forest, Aralvaimozhi Beat within the jurisdiction of Kulathuvizhai. Further, the case of the prosecution is that already they cut down 19 trees, in which, 17 trees were taken from the forest and two trees were hidden by them. When they were taken the trees and proceeded, they were got hold. Further, the respondent failed to produce any document to show that 17 trees, which were already seized, were kept in the manner known to law and they were also not compared with the present trees alledgedly recovered from the petitioners.

That apart, the respondent failed to produce any notification or declaration to the effect that the scene of occurrence is the reserved forest area. In order to attract the offence under Section 21 (d), (e) and (f) of Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882, the scene of crime should be reserved forest area.

follows:- ''21.Penalties for trespass or damage in reserved forest and acts prohibited in such forests. Any person who '' (a) ......

(b) ......

(d) trespasses or pastures cattle, or permits cattle to trespass;

(e) fells, girdles, marks, lops, tops, uproots or burns any tree, or strips off the bark or leaves from, or otherwise damages, the same;

(f) quarries stone, burns lime or charcoal, or collects, subject to any manufacturing process, or removes any forest produce......''

7.Admittedly, the prosecution did not produce any material documents to show that the scene of occurrence is the reserved forest area. Further, the respondent also failed to prove that the trees, which were alledgedly carried by the petitioners, are Eetti trees by any analysis and failed to examine any independent witnesses. In order to prove the charges, PW1 to PW5 were examined, who are the officials witnesses and as such the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioners cannot be sustained and it is liable to be set aside. 6/8

8.Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case stands allowed. 23.03.2023 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No vsd ToT 1.Mahila Court (Fast Track Court), Nagercoil.

2.The Special Court (Forest Cases), Nagercoil.

3.The Forest Range Officer, Boothapandi Forest Range, Kanniyakumari District.

4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

7/8

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

vsd 23.03.2023 8/8