STATE OF KARNATAKA vs. PRAKASH

NON­REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No(s).  466/2012 STATE OF KARNATAKA                         …Appellant(s) VERSUS PRAKASH & ORS.                           …Respondent(s) WITH Criminal Appeal No. 467/2012  STATE OF KARNATAKA          …Appellant(s) VERSUS ANIL AND ANR.                       …Respondent(s) AND  Criminal Appeal No. 468/2012 STATE OF KARNATAKA                      …Appellant(s) VERSUS JAYANNA                                  …Respondent(s) JUDGMENT   N. V. R AMANA  , J.   These   appeals   arise   out   of   distinct   impugned Signature Not Verified judgments   passed   by   the   High   Court   of Digitally signed by VISHAL ANAND Date: 2018.10.01 17:02:35 IST Reason: Karnataka   in   Crl.   Appeal   No.   438/2007,   Crl.   Appeal   No. 1 1469/2007   and   Crl.   Appeal   No. 458/2007   respectively   wherein,   the   High   Court   allowed   the appeals  preferred by  the  accused­respondents  and  acquitted them of offence under Section 87 of the Karnataka Forest Act (hereinafter “ the Act ”) read with Sections 379 and 34 of Indian Penal Code ( IPC ). Aggrieved by the above order of acquittal, the State of Karnataka has preferred these appeals. 2.    It would be appropriate to note the facts in brief, necessary for the disposal of these cases.  The accused persons were   distinctly   alleged   to   have   been   found   transporting sandalwood   in   their   private   vehicles,   thereupon   they   were intercepted by the concerned Range Forest Officer. The accused were accordingly charged for offence punishable under Section 87 of the Act, read with Sections 379 and 34 of IPC. The trial court after appreciation of various evidences 3.  presented before it, convicted the accused­respondents under Section 87 of the Act read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo Simple Imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000 individually. 2 4.   Aggrieved   by   the   above   order   of   conviction,   the accused­respondents appealed before the High Court by filing Crl. Appeal No. 438/2007, Crl. Appeal No. 1469/2007 and Crl. Appeal   No.   458/2007.   The   High   Court   while   acquitting   the accused respondents relied upon Section 62C of the Act and observed that the compliance with requirements as provided under Section 62C of the Act is mandatory in nature and in case of non­compliance of the same, charges under Section 87 of the Act cannot be sustained. 5. Aggrieved by the above order of reversal of conviction, the Appellant­State preferred appeals before this Court. Since these appeals are based on common question, they were heard together. The counsel for the appellant­State submitted that 6.   the High Court of Karnataka erred in acquitting the accused­ respondents   by   wrongly   relying   on   the   non­compliance   of Section   62C   of   the   Act   without   assessing   the   facts   and circumstances   of   the   case   and   the   nature   of   the   evidence adduced in its true perspective. 3 7.  On   the   contrary,   the   counsel   appearing   for   the respective accused­Respondents while supporting the judgment rendered by the High Court, relied on the mandatory nature of Section 62C of the Act and submitted that the concerned Range Forest Officer was not authorised to examine the forest produce as provided in Section 62C of the Act, hence the certificate issued by him cannot be said to be valid. Having  heard  the  learned  Counsels from  both the 8.  sides,   the   common   contention   involved   in   all   the   aforesaid appeals is that although the seized goods of forest produce is showed   and   proved   by   the   prosecution   as   sandalwood   by examining expert, the course adopted for the same was not in consonance with the provisions of Section 62C of the Act. On perusal of the facts of cases presented above, we 9.  find that the prosecution could not produce any evidence to show that the concerned Range Forest Officer who issued the certificate in the present cases was qualified to do the same as prescribed under the provisions of Section 62C of the Act which makes  it   mandatory   that   the   officer   concerned   should   have been authorised by the Government and should have received 4 training for examining the forest produce. The concerned forest officers have nowhere stated in their evidence that they were duly authorised by the  State Government and competent to issue  the   certificates   in   question.   Going   by   the   material   on record, it can be said that the prosecution has failed to prove that the requirements as contemplated under Section 62C of the Act were met by the concerned officers before issuing the impugned   certificates.   There   is   also   no   other   admissible evidence on record in support of the prosecution case that the confiscated   items   were   sandalwood   billets.   Under   the circumstances, the High Court was right in setting aside the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court by reaching to the conclusion that the offence under Section 87 of the Act cannot be said to have been established against the accused in accordance with law. 10.  For all the aforesaid reasons, we find no merit in these appeals calling for our interference with the impugned orders  passed   by   the   High   Court.   The   criminal   appeals   are accordingly dismissed.     ................................................J (N.V. RAMANA) 5 ................................................J (MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR) NEW DELHI,  AUGUST 30, 2018. 6