Kerala High Court
State Of Kerala vs Shamir on 27 April, 2000
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID
MONDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE 2014/12TH JYAISHTA, 1936
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2663 of 2003
-----------------------------
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CC 341/1997 OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST
CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, CHITTUR DATED 27-04-2000
REVISION PETITIONER/COMPLAINANT:
-------------------------------
STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KEARLA,
ERNAKULAM
BY ADV. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.LILLY LESLI
RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED:
-------------------
1. SHAMIR, S/O.MOIDEENKUTTY, PUTHUKKATTIL,
KOOTTAPPURAM, OTTAPALAM.
2. MUHAMMED HAJI, S/O.MOIDUNNI,
THULIYATH VEEDU, KARIMPUZHA.
3. G.NOUSHAD, S/O.GOUSE, 871-3RD CROSS DEVAR PALAYAM,
BANGALORE, KARNATAKA.
4. MUHAMMEDALI, S/O.CHEKKUTTI, THRIKKALUR,
PALAKKAD.
5. MUHAMMED, S/O.MUHAMMEDKUTTY, KANAKKAMAKATH,
VATTAMKULAM, OTTAPPALAM (FACTORY OWNER)
6. HAMZA, S/O.MAMMUTTI, MOOCHIKKADAN VEEDU,
OTHUNGAL P.O, MALAPPURAM
7. MUHAMMEDKUTTY, S/O.ABDUL RAHIMAN,
PARATHUMMOOLAYIL VEEDU, KODIYATHUR PO,
KOZHIKODE.
8. K.P.MUHAMMEDKUTTY, S/O.ABUBEKKAR,
MUTHIRAKKODI VEEDU, POKKOTTUR, MALAPPURAM.
9. MAGID, S/O.MUHAMMED, PARAMBAN VEEDU,
MELMURI, MALAPPURAM.
Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2663 of 2003 : 2 :
10. BASHEER, S/O.MUHAMMED, THACHARIPADICKAL VEEDU,
MELMURI, MALAPPURAM.
11. HANEEFA, S/O.MOIDEENKUTTY HAJI,
KUTTASSERY VEEDU, KOTTUR P.O,
12. RASHEED, S/O.HAMZA, PUKKOTH VEEDU,
THRIKKALAUR, MANARKKAD.
13. NAZIR, S/O.IBRAHIM, AYODHYA NAGAR,
CHANDRA NAGAR, PALAKKAD.
14. MASILAN BASHEER, S/O.KUNCHAYAMMU,
VATTALLUR P.O, MANKARAPARAMBU,
MALAPPURAM.
BY ADV. SRI.G.MOHAN
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 02-06-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
ab
P.UBAID, J.
---------------------------------------
Crl.R.P No.2663 of 2003
---------------------------------------
Dated this the 2nd day of June, 2014
O R D E R
An order of discharge made by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Chittur in C.C.No.341/1997 is under challenge in this revision The respondents herein were prosecuted under Section 27 of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961, on the allegation that some quantity of sandal wood oil was seized from their oil mill by the forest officials, on 18.20.1996. The Forest Range Officer registered a crime on suspicion that the said quantity of sandal wood oil was distiled by the accused by using some sandal wood collected from Government forest. However, on the ground that the prosecution has not produced anything to prove that the material collected is sandal wood oil, the learned Magistrate discharged the accused on 27.4.2000. On a perusal of the case records, I find no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order. The prosecution has not produced any material to prove scientifically or authentically that the liquid seized is in fact sandal wood oil. It is pertinent to note that the sandal wood oil was seized by the forest officials from a licensed mill. No effort was made by the officials to verify the stock register kept in the Crl.R.P No.2663 of 2003 2 mill, and to verify whether the said quantity of oil was distiled by using the sandal wood collected illegally by the mill owner. There is reason to believe that the property was seized, and the crime was registered against the respondents merely on suspicion, but the forest officials did not make any investigation to detect or find out whether the seized quantity of sandal wood oil was in fact distiled by using sandal wood collected from Government forest. This is not a case where the sandal wood oil was found in the possession of somebody having no mill or license. The respondents are admittedly licensed mill owners, and the alleged quantity of oil was seized from the mill. In such a circumstance, satisfactory evidence is required to prove the prosecution case including the fact that what is seized is in fact sandal wood oil. It was in such a circumstance, in the absence of any material, the learned Magistrate made an order of discharge. I do not find any irregularity or illegality in the order of the court below.
In the result, this Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed.
P.UBAID
ab JUDGE