State of Karnataka vs Mahammad Raffique

A.S. Pachhapure, J.—The State has preferred this appeal challenging the judgment and order acquitting the respondent for the charge under Sections 86 and 87 of the Karnataka Forest Act r/w. Section 379 IPC on a trial held by the Sessions Judge, Davangere. The facts reveal that on 2.8.2005 PW 1-Thippeswamy, the PSI was on duty of inspecting the vehicles on the road along with other police officials and while he was at Lingadahalli cross, he found the respondent who was proceeding on a scooter. The PSI requested to stop the vehicle and as the respondent did not stop it, he chased and at that time the respondent said to have left the scooter and tried to run away. He was apprehended and on search of the scooter, he found 36 billets of sandalwood pieces and was in unlawful possession of the same. The billets were weighed. The total weight was 5 Kgs. He seized the scooter and also the billets under the mahazar Ex. P1 and registered a case in Crime No. 115/2005 for the aforesaid offences. He sent the complaint and the FIR to the Magistrate and the sample billets MOs. 2 to 4 (3 billets) were sent for the opinion of PW 6. He recorded the statement of the witnesses, obtained the certificate Ex. P5 from PW 6 and on completion of the investigation filed the charge sheet against the respondent for the said charges.

During the trial, the prosecution examined PWs. 1 to 6 and got marked the documents Exs. P1 to 5 and MOs. 1 to 4. Statement of the respondent was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. No defence evidence was led. The trial Court after hearing the counsel for the parties and on appreciation of the material on record, acquitted the respondent for the charges under Sections 86 and 87 of the Karnataka Forest Act and u/s 379 IPC. Aggrieved by the acquittal, the State has filed this appeal.

I have heard learned High Court Government Pleader. Learned Counsel for the respondent is absent.

The point that arises for my consideration is:

Whether the State has made out any grounds to warrant interference in the judgment and order acquitting the respondent for the said charges?

Learned High Court Government Pleader would contend that the evidences of PWs. 1 to 5 is sufficient to prove the unlawful possession of sandalwood billets, hence, he contends that the Trial Court committed an error in granting an order of acquittal.

Perusal of seizure mahazar-Ex. P1 would reveal, 36 billets of sandalwood were seized from the scooter belonging to the respondent. After the seizure of these billets, 3 billets i.e., MOs. 2 to 4 were sent for the opinion of PW 6 who on examination of billets certified that they are sandalwood billets. MO 1 which is marked during the course of trial is a scooter belonging to the respondent whereas Mos. 2 to 4 are the three billets sample out of 36 billets seized under mahazar Ex. P.1. Though the investigating officer has seized 36 billets of sandalwood only 3 billets i.e., Mos. 2 to 4 were sent for opinion of PW 6 and the Investigating Officer sought for permission of the Court to retain the sandalwood billets.

During the trial, the remaining 33 billets were not produced. So except Mos. 2 to 4, the remaining billets were not produced during the course of trial and in the circumstances, it cannot be said that the billets seized from the respondent were weighing 5 Kgs. There is no explanation by the prosecution for non production of 33 billets. It is in these circumstances that a serious doubt arose about the complexity of respondent in the crime. It is for this reason that the Trial Court has granted an order of acquittal. I do not find any justifiable grounds to warrant interference in the judgment and order.

That apart, this appeal is filed against the order of acquittal and the Appellate Court will be slow in interfering with such orders. Even if a second view is possible, the one accepted by the Trial Court cannot be disturbed. Perusal of the material placed on record and in the context of this principle laid down, I do not find any merit in this appeal. Hence, it is dismissed.