Parameswaran @ Paramasivan S/o Kalimuthu; Ravi S/o Paraman and Thankaraj S/o Paramasivam v. State of Kerala

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: B. Sudheendra Kumar
Judgment Date: 2018-12-18
Court Decision / Holding: The revision petitions are allowed; the conviction and sentence under Section 27(1)(e)(iv) of the Kerala Forest Act are set aside and the petitioners are acquitted. Bail bonds are discharged.
Final Disposition: Acquitted; bail bonds discharged

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

PARAMESWARAN @ PARAMASIVAN S/O.KALIMUTHU
RAVI S/O.PARAMAN, MICHELOGIRI BHAGOM, KOVILKADAVU, KANTHALLOOR VILLAGE, MUNNAR
THANKARAJ S/O.PARAMASIVAM, MICHELOGIRI BHAGOM, KOVILKADAVU, KANTHALLOOR VILLAGE, MUNNAR

Respondents

STATE OF KERALA THROUGH FOREST RANGE OFFICER, MARAYOOR, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
STATE OF KERALA OFFICER MARAYOOR, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri Sooraj T. Elenjickal
• Sri K. Nirmalan
• Sri Sooraj T. Elenjickal

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri Ravikrishnan (Special Public Prosecutor)
• Public Prosecutor

Case Synopsis & Summary

This judgment from the High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam, deals with two criminal revision petitions challenging convictions under Section 27(1)(e)(iv) of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961. The revisions arise from assessments of alleged sand-wood cutting in a forest by the petitioners on 12-07-2002, with Sessions Court, Pathanamthitta, and JMFC, Devikulam, having convicted them. The core issue is whether the acts occurred within a reserve forest, a necessary precondition for conviction under Section 27. The prosecution relied on Ext. P3 (a notification) to assert reserve forest status, but the court notes that proof of gazette publication under Section 19 is essential to establish the reserve forest. Citing Jose Uthuppan and Another v. Forest Range Officer, Pathanamthitta and 2015(4) KHC 761, the court articulates that the Government must issue and publish the notification in the Gazette, and a certified copy of the notification or Gazette evidence must be produced. In the absence of Gazette proof, the court finds that the prosecution failed to establish the reserve forest locus, and hence the conviction cannot stand. Consequently, the petitions are allowed and the petitioners acquitted; bail bonds are discharged. The decision underscores the necessity of Gazette publication to prove reserve forest status under the Forest Act.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 27 (1) (e) (iv) of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961Section 19 of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend that the prosecution failed to prove that the alleged offence occurred in a reserve forest as required for conviction under Section 27(1)(e)(iv). They point out that Ext. P3 is only a copy of a notification and does not establish Gazette publication under Section 19, which is essential to prove reserve forest status. Without Gazette evidence, the essential ingredient for the offence is missing, rendering the conviction unsustainable.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that the act constituted trespass within a forest area and relied on Ext. P3 notification to establish reserve forest status. They argued that the notification, if properly issued, would satisfy the legal requirement and sustain the conviction under Section 27(1)(e)(iv).

Cited Precedents (2)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Jose Uthuppan and Another v. Forest Range Officer, Pathanamthitta	—	Positive	Cited to emphasize that proof of Gazette publication is essential under S.19 to establish a reserve forest.
2015 (4) KHC 761	2015 (4) KHC 761	Positive	Cited for the proposition that Gazette publication is required to establish reserve forest status under S.19.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR** **TUESDAY,THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018/27TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940** **Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2426 of 2013** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CRA 24/2007 of SESSIONS COURT,PATHANAMTHITTA DATED 06-06-2009** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 211/2003 of JMFC, DEVIKULAM** **REVISION PETITIONER/S:** **PARAMESWARAN @ PARAMASIVAN S/O.KALIMUTHU, AGED 32 YEARS, LAKKOM NEW DIVISION, VAGUVARAI ESTATE, KDH VILLAGE, DEVIKULAM, IDUKKI DISTRICT.** **BY ADVS. SRI.SOORAJ T.ELENJICKAL SRI.K.NIRMALAN** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **STATE OF KERALA THROUGH FOREST RANGE OFFICER, MARAYOOR, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA.** BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. RAVIKRISHNAN **THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18.12.2018, ALONG WITH Crl.Rev.Pet.2539/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **[Crl.Rev.Pet 2426/2013 , Crl.Rev.Pet.2539/2009]** -2- ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR** **TUESDAY ,THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940** **Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 2539 of 2009** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRA 24/2007 of SESSIONS COURT,THODUPUZHA DATED 06-06-2009** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 211/2003 of J.M.F.C. DEVIKULAM DATED 30-12-2008** ## **REVISION PETITIONER/S:** - **1 RAVI, S/O. PARAMAN, TATA TEA ESTATE GUNDUMALA UPPER DIVISION,KDH VILLAGE,MUNNAR** - **2 THANKARAJ, S/O.PARAMASIVAM, MICHELGIRI BHAGOM, KOVILKADAVU,KANTHALLOOR VILLAGE, MUNNAR** **BY ADV. SRI.SOORAJ T.ELENJICKAL** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **STATE OF KERALA OFFICER MARAYOOR,REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM.** **BY ADV. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **SRI RAVIKRISHNAN SPL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOREST** **THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18.12.2018, ALONG WITH Crl.Rev.Pet.2426/2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **[Crl.Rev.Pet 2426/2013 , Crl.Rev.Pet.2539/2009]** -3- ## **ORDER** **[Crl.Rev.Pet 2426/2013 ,Crl.Rev.Pet.2539/2009 ]** The revision petitioners were convicted and sentenced by the courts below under Section 27 (1) (e) (iv) of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961 (“the Forest Act” for short). 2. The prosecution allegation is that on 12-7-2002, the revision petitioners were found cutting and sawing the sand wood from the forest. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor . 4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners has argued that the prosecution failed to establish that the offence alleged was committed in a reserved forest as alleged by the prosecution and in the said circumstances, **[Crl.Rev.Pet 2426/2013 , Crl.Rev.Pet.2539/2009]** -4- the conviction and sentence passed by the courts below cannot be sustained. 5. It is clear from Section 27 of the Forest Act that before a person can be held guilty under Section 27 of the Forest Act, the prosecution has to establish that the act complained of was done in a reserve forest. This is a very essential ingredient of the offence under Section 27 of the Forest Act. 6. The only offence for which the revision petitioners were convicted was the offence under Section 27 (1) (e)(iv) of the Forest Act. This would show that the only offence proved against the revision petitioners was that the revision petitioners trespassed into the reserve forest. In order to prove that the offence was committed in a reserve forest, the prosecution produced Ext. P3 notification through PW1. This Court in Jose Uthuppan and Another v. Forest Range Officer, Pathanamthitta and **[Crl.Rev.Pet 2426/2013 , Crl.Rev.Pet.2539/2009]** -5- ## Another [2015 (4) KHC 761] held in para 16 thus: “It is implicit from the provisions of S.19 of the Act that the Government has to not only issue notification but the Government has also to publish the same in the Gazette. Therefore, it is the duty of the prosecution not only to establish that the notification was issued, but the prosecution has also to establish that the said notification was published in the Gazette. That can be done either by producing the Gazette containing the notification or by producing the certified copy of the notification and adduce evidence of its publication in the Gazette. In view of the above reason, in order to establish that the act complained of was committed in a forest constituted as a reserve forest, the prosecution must either produce the Gazette containing the notification or a certified copy of the notification and adduce evidence of its publication in the Gazette”. **[Crl.Rev.Pet 2426/2013 , Crl.Rev.Pet.2539/2009]** -6- In this case, neither the Gazette nor the certified copy of the notification was produced before the Court. No evidence was also adduced before the court to prove that the said notification was published in the Gazette. Ext. P3 is only the copy of a true copy of notification. However, there is no evidence to show that the said notification was published in the Gazette. In view of the above reason, it cannot be said that the prosecution could establish that the revision petitioners trespassed into the reserve forest. The above aspect was not considered by the courts below while appreciating the evidence. In the said circumstances, the conviction and sentence passed by the courts below under Section 27 (1)(e)(iv) of the Forest Act cannot be sustained. In the result, these Criminal Revision Petitions stand allowed, setting aside the conviction and sentence passed by the courts below under Section 27 (1)(e)(iv) of the Forest Act and the revision petitioners stand acquitted for **[Crl.Rev.Pet 2426/2013 , Crl.Rev.Pet.2539/2009]** -7- the said offence. The bail bonds of the revision petitioners stand discharged. Dated the the 18[th] day of December, 2018. **Sd/-B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR, JUDGE** . ani/ /true copy/ P.S. to Jduge **[Crl.Rev.Pet 2426/2013 , Crl.Rev.Pet.2539/2009]** -8-