Divisional Forest Officer vs N.C. Balakrishnan on 8 January, 1986
This is as it should be. Those involved in the crime and found guilty on the basis of materials and evidence, do not deserve any sympathetic consideration, having regard to the gravity of the crime. Imposition of a nominal fine, would only encourage those who speculate in the smuggling of forest produce. Courts have necessarily to be aware Of these larger considerations when dealing with the forest offences. The approach the Court should adopt towards those found guilty of such abhorrent social crimes had been discussed in Tharu v. State 1985 Ker LT 310, with reference to the decision of the Supreme Court, Pyarali K. Tejani v. Mahadeo Ramachandra Dange and Prem Ballab v. State (Delhi Administration) of the Punjab High Court in Joginder Singh v. State of Punjab 1980 Cri LJ 1218 : AIR 1981 NOC 21 (FB) and of this Court in Mathai John v. State of Kerala 1978 KerLT 154 : 1978 Cri LJ 742 and Ammini v. State of Kerala 1981 Ker LT SN 28, Case No. 50 : 1981 Cri LJ 1170 (The Supreme Court declined special leave sought for against the above judgment vide S.L.P.Nos. 947 & 963 of 1985).