K. Natarajan, J. - (1.) This revision petition is filed by the accusedpetitioner Nos.1 and 2 under Section 397 of Cr.P.C., challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 29.01.2009/31.01.2009 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.,) and JMFC, N.R. Pura, in C.C.No.520/2006, which was confirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru in Crl.A.No.35/2009 vide judgment dated 21.04.2011.
(2.) The petitioners herein are the accused and the respondent is the State before the Courts below. The ranks of the parties before the Courts below are retained for the sake of brevity.
(3.) The case of the prosecution is that on 24.10.2005, when Naveen Kumar, Forester of Kundur Section, along with his staff were on patrolling duty, they found four persons illegally carrying Teak wood logs on their shoulders and upon seeing the forest officials, they threw down the logs and fled away in two ferry boats, which were already kept ready by the side of Bhadra backwaters. The forest officials tried to catch them, but could not succeed. The forest officials identified four accused persons and other two remained unidentified. On verification, they found that six Teak wood logs were cut and shifted. The forest officials seized Teak wood logs under a panchanama. After investigation, they filed charge sheet against four accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 24, 50 and 62 of the Karnataka Forest Act, Rules 143 and 144 of the Karnataka Forest Rules and Sections 27, 28, 29, 31 and 32 read with Section 51 of the Wife Life Protection Act, 1972. The accused appeared before the Court and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the prosecution was called upon to lead evidence. The prosecution examined in all four witnesses and got marked four documents as Exs.P.1 to P.4 apart from the material objects as MOs.1 to 6. Thereafter, the statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. The case of the accused was one of a total denial. After hearing the arguments, the Trial Court found the accused persons guilty of the offences alleged and convicted them to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months for the offence punishable under Section 24 of the Karnataka Forest Act; to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under Section 50 of the Karnataka Forest Act; to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months for the offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC; to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months for the offence punishable under Section 27 of the Wild Life Protection Act; to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months for the offence punishable under Section 29 of the Wife Life Protection Act; to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months for the offence punishable under Section 31 of the Wild Life Protection Act and sentence were ordered to run concurrently. Being aggrieved by the same, accused Nos.1 and 2 preferred Crl.A.No.35/2009 before the Additional Sessions Judge at Chikkamagaluru. After hearing both sides, learned Additional Sessions Judge by judgment dated 21.04.2011 dismissed the said appeal confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the same, accused Nos.1 and 2, who are the petitioners herein have preferred this revision petition challenging the said judgment of conviction and sentence on various grounds contending that the judgment passed by the learned Magistrate and learned Sessions Judge are perverse and devoid of merits and the same are liable to be set aside. The learned Magistrate has not applied its mind to the evidence on record while passing the judgment of conviction and sentence. As per the evidence of PW.1, as the accused persons were 80 meters away from the forest officials, they could not identify the accused properly and there were no roots of the trees disclosed in that area and the materials used for cutting of the trees. A false case has been foisted against the accused. The Trial Court also failed to consider that the material objects marked before it do not have the marking made during the alleged seizure and the marking made on the material objects are quite different from the marking made at the time of seizure. There is non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of Section 62(3)(a) of the Karnataka Forest Act. The prosecution has failed to prove the very existence of cutting of the trees in the forest. Both the Courts below have not appreciated the evidence on record. Hence, the accused/petitioners plead for setting aside of the judgments passed by the Courts below.;