Revision petitioners were convicted by learned Magistrate for an offence punishable under Section 27(1)(e)(iii) and (iv) of the Kerala Forest Act. Thereafter, they unsuccessfully challenged the conviction in Criminal Appeal No.74/2001 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Thodupuzha. After considering the entire facts, the lower appellate court confirmed the conviction and modified the sentence. The trial court imposed a consecutive sentence which was modified as a concurrent one in appeal. In spite of posting on various dates, there was no representation for the revision petitioners for three consecutive times. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor. I have perused the records.
2. Prosecution case is that at about 2.00 p.m on 01-04-1996, the revision petitioners trespassed into the sandalwood reserve forest and cut down three sandalwood trees. Revision petitioners took a stand of complete denial. Prosecution relied mainly on the testimony of PW's 1, 2 and 5 to prove the guilt of the
Crl.Rev.Pet. No.1115 of 2003 2
revision petitioners. They were Forest Guards attached to the Marayur Police station. It is their case that while they were on patrol duty, they saw the revision petitioners along with the third accused in the case going through the reserve forest carrying pieces of sandalwood as head load. They were arrested by the officers. The evidence adduced before the trial court clearly established the fact that the revision petitioners were indulging in an offence alleged against them. The courts below appreciated the evidence properly and applied the correct law in this matter. I find no illegality, irregularity and incorrectness in the conviction as well as in the matter of sentence. Therefore, I find that the revision is devoid of any merit. Hence, it is dismissed. The court below shall take appropriate steps to execute the sentence.
All pending interlocutory applications will stand dismissed.
amk Sd/- A.HARIPRASAD, JUDGE.