The Supreme Court today agreed to hear appeal, against the order of Kerala High Court which had refused to set aside conviction and sentence under Section 27(1)(d) of the Kerala Forest Amendment Act for allegedly found to be in possession of 162 pieces of teak wood, a forest produce.
The Top Court heard plea of Basheer and Kunhi Mohammed who were charged for keeping 162 pieces of teak wood in a room occupied by them. Advocate Haris Beeran appeared for Basheer and Kunhi mohammed before the two judge bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Surya Kant.
Justice Surya Kant opined that the High court was right in affirming the conviction since you were in the conscious possession the forest produce (Timber). Once the prosecution has proved that Teak wood were lying in the room occupied by you and hence it was upto you to prove that from where you procured those 162 pieces of teaks.
Adv. Beeran submitted before the court that provision of forest act is much more extensive.
The bench was hearing criminal appeal related to conviction and sentence passed under section 27(1)(d) of Kerala Forest Amendment Act. The Bench issued notice only with respect to confinement of sentence.
Also Read: Delhi High Court stays summon issued to Subramanian Swamy in defamation case
The Single Judge of Kerala High Court while partly allowing the Criminal Revision held that-Though there is evidence to prove that the accused were in
“possession of forest produce illicitly removed from the reserved forest, there is no direct evidence to show that the accused themselves trespassed into the reserved forest and cut and removed the trees. Hence, the ingredients of section 27(1)(e)(iii) and (iv) of the Act not attracted“
As per the prosecution case, it was alleged that the Petitioners were found keeping the forest produce (timber) illegally ,which consisted of 162 pieces of teak in a room occupied by them and thereby committed the offence.
Also Read: Delhi High Court directs concern authorities to stop unauthorised construction in Jama Masjid area
Further, the prosecution averred that teak timber was cut and removed from teak plantation at Amarambalam.The testimonies of forest guard who witnesses the offence and others were Deputy Ranger and Range officer who were there at the spot were recorded.
Forest guard submitted that upon inspecton of furniture shop, they discovered 7 swarm items of teak, 162 in numbers kept in said shop.
The defence witness admits the possession and ownership of such timber logs which were seized.
Prosecution was able to prove the guilt of petitioners with regard to possessing the forest trees which was illlicitly removed from reserved forest under section 27(1)(d) of Kerala Forest Act. Counsel for Petitioners before Kerala High Court contended that Section 27(1)(d) of the Act requires conscious knowledge of the nature of the goods.
Basheer and Kunhi Mohammed preferred against the order of Kerala High court wherein the High court affirm the conviction under section 27(1)(d) of the aforesaid act passed by revisional court dated 8.08.2003. The Kerala High court while partly allowing the revision petition of Basheer and other, set aside their conviction order passed by sentencing court under Section 27(1)(e)(iv) and (iii).
Also Read: Electoral Bonds: CJI NV Ramana agrees to hear case challenging issuance of bonds
The High court had held that both the courts below concurrently found that 162 pieces of timber seized from the furniture shop bearing No.45/IV of Edayur Panchayath were forest produce and were found to be in possession of the accused. The courts below further found that those forest produces were illicitly removed from a reserved forest.
Vide trial court order, the Petitioners were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month each under Section 27(1)(e)(iv) of the Act, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month each under Sections 27(1)(e)(iii) of the Act and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month each under Section 27(1) (d) of the Act.
Also Read: