IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.1129 OF 2011 BETWEEN:
1. NAGARAJA SON OF THIPPESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS 2. MYLARI MYLARAPPA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS 3. SATHISH SON OF G M JAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF KUDLIGERE VILLAGE BHADRAVATHI TALUK, PIN:577 301. ….PETITIONERS (BY SRI. R GOPAL, ADVOCATE) AND:
THE RANGE FOREST OFFICER CHANNAGIRI RANGE, BHADRAVATHI. … RESPONDENT (BY SRI. VINAYAKA H S, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH 401 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 30.9.2011 PASSED BY THE PRESIDING OFFICER, FAST TRACK COURT, BHADRAVATHI IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.52 OF 2011 AND ORDER DATED: 14.03.2011 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL JMFC, BHADRAVATHI IN C.C.NO.4607 OF 2006.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The revision petitioners aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 30.9.2011 passed by the Fast Tract Court at Bhadravathi in Criminal Appeal No.52 of 2011 confirming the judgment and order dated 14.3.2011 passed by the Civil Judge and Additional JMFC, Bhadravathi in C.C.No.4607 of 2006, has filed this revision petition.
2. Brief facts of the case are as under :
On 27.05.2004, at about 5.00 P.M., the Forest Staff of Kudligere Forest Area were on rounds (gast) duty and when they came towards Poojari Biddha Hallada Gudda, they found three persons coming towards them carrying wooden logs on their shoulders and on seeing the complainant, the accused threw the logs and started running. They arrested one person and two persons ran away by throwing the beete wood.
The arrested person disclosed his name as Nagaraja s/o Thippeshappa and he has also informed about two persons as Mylari and Sathish. The property was marked with white paint and given a number and mahazar was drawn at the spot. The investigating officer has recorded the statement of the witnesses and has concluded that the petitioners are illegally possessing and transporting the beete wood without any pass or permit and therefore, charge sheet was filed.
3. Petitioners appeared through their Advocate before the trial Court and they denied the charges leveled against them. Prosecution has examined in all three witnesses as PWs 1 to PW3 and got marked 7 documents as exhibits P1 to P7 along with MOs. 1 and 2. No defence evidence was adduced. The trial Court after hearing both the parties has passed the judgment dated 14.3.2011 and convicted the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 24 and 104A of the Karnataka Forest Act read with 34 of IPC and sentenced them pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offence under Section 24 of the Karnataka Forest Act r/w. 34 of IPC failing which to undergo S.I. for three months and to undergo two years simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000/- each failing which to undergo six months S.I. for the offence under Section 104(A) of the Karnataka Forest Act r/w. Section 34 of IPC. The petitioners aggrieved by the order passed by the trial Court filed an appeal which is registered as Criminal Appeal No.52 of 2011 before the Fast Track Court at Bhadravathi. The Appellate Court confirmed the order of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. The petitioner aggrieved by the said orders, have filed this revision petition.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader.
5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners submits that the Fast Tract Court has not at all considered the material on record while coming to a conclusion.
6. The learned High Court Government Pleader fairly concedes on this aspect.
7. The contention of the counsel for the petitioners is well founded as could be seen from the impugned judgment of the Fast Track Court. The impugned judgment of the Fast Track Court is cryptic in as much as it has not at all discussed the evidence of the prosecution witnesses on record. Even proper facts are not forthcoming from the judgment. As the Fast Track Court is the first and the last Court of appeal in this category of cases, it has to consider, discuss, appreciate and weigh the material on record in its entirety before coming to the conclusion. Criminal matters are mainly decided on the facts of each case. The Appellate Court virtually is the last Court to appreciate the facts in depth. But, unfortunately in the judgment impugned in this petition, the Presiding Officer of the Fast Tract Court without properly appreciating the evidence adduced by the prosecution and also documents produced, without assigning proper reasons, has disposed of the appeal. Such a casual approach by the Presiding Officer of the Fast Track Court while disposing of criminal appeal is deprecated. The Fast Track Court has not applied its mind to the facts of the case while coming to such a conclusion.
8. Under such a circumstance, it is not possible for this Court to sustain the judgment of the Appellate Court, which is a non-speaking one. Hence, the following:
ORDER Criminal Revision Petition is allowed. The judgment and order dated 30.9.2011 passed by the Fast Track Court, Bhadravathi in Criminal Appeal No.52 of 2011 is set aside. Matter is remanded to the Fast Track Court, Bhadravathi for fresh disposal in accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE rs