State of Karnataka vs Venkatesha @ Jiya

N. Ananda, J.—The respondent was tried for an offence punishable under Sections 87 of the Karnataka Forest Act and also for offences punishable under Sections 9, 39(a)(b) and 51 of the Wild Life Protection Act r/w Section 379 IPC. The learned trial judge convicted the accused of afore-stated offences. Therefore, accused was before the I-appellate court.

The learned judge of the I-appellate court acquitted the accused of an offence punishable u/s 87 of the Karnataka Forest Act and Section 379 IPC and confirmed the judgment of conviction of accused for offences punishable under Sections 9, 39(a)(b) and 51 of the Wild Life Protection Act.

The State aggrieved by acquittal of accused of offences punishable u/s 87 of the Karnataka Forest Act and Section 379 IPC is before this court.

I have heard learned Government Advocate for the State.

The learned judge of the I-appellate court has acquitted the accused of an offence punishable u/s 87 of the Karnataka Forest Act and Section 379 IPC on the ground that sandalwood billets in the possession of accused were not weighing more than 4 Kgs. The learned judge of the I-appellate court has referred to Rule 154 of the Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969 (for short "the Rules").

In terms of proviso to Rule 154 of the Rules, no permit is required for movement of sandalwood not exceeding 3.17 Kg. in weight carried by persons for their bonafide personal use.

The matter can be viewed form other angle also.

The prosecution has not produced the certificate issued by the Authorised officer u/s 62 of the Karnataka Forest Act. The alleged offence was committed on 25.10.2004. The prosecution has not produced the certificate relating to seized sandalwood billets as required u/s 62 of the Karnataka Forest Act. The prosecution has relied on the report submitted by the Range Forest Officer. The prosecution has not produced the notification to prove that the Range Forest Officer was notified to issue certificate in relation to forest produce u/s 62 of the Karnataka Forest Act.

The learned counsel for accused has relied on a decision of this court, reported in Raghavendrachari Vs. State of Karnataka, , wherein this court has held that issuance of notification u/s 62-C of the Act and examination of forest produce by the Authorised Officer as per notification u/s 62-C of the Act is mandatory. Therefore, non-compliance of provisions of section 62-C of the Act would vitiate prosecution.

The learned Government Advocate has relied on Notification issued by Government of Karnataka on 21.05.2010, reading as hereunder:-

The Government of Karnataka hereby notifies as per Rule 62(c) of Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 authorizing the following trained forest officers to issue of certificates for offence cases irrespective of forest produce.

1) Range Forest Officer

2) Assistant Conservator of Forests

3) Deputy Conservator of Forests

4) Conservator of Forests

5) Chief Conservator of Forests.

In the case on hand, offences are alleged to have been committed on 25.10.2004. The Investigating Officer has not produced Notification issued by the Government of Karnataka to prove that Range Forest Officer had been notified to exercise powers u/s 62-C of the Act and certificate issued by Range Forest Officer was valid in the eye of law.

In this view of the matter also, accused cannot be held guilty of an offence punishable u/s 87 of the Karnataka Forest Act. Therefore, there are no reasons to interfere with the impugned judgment. The appeal is dismissed.