HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.441 OF 2007 Dated 16-7-2014 Between:
Vayalpad Mohammed Abdul Khader.
Petitioner.
And:
The Divisional Forest Officer, Chittoor through its Public prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.
…Respondent.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.441 OF 2007 ORDER:
This revision is against judgment dated 26-3- 2007 in Criminal Appeal No.126 of 2005 on the file of VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madanapalle whereunder judgment dated 26-4-2005 in C.C.No.166 of 2002 on the file of II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Madanapalle is confirmed.
Brief facts leading to this revision are as follows:
Divisional Forest Officer, Chittoor West Division filed complaint against revision petitioner alleging that on 4-10-2001 on receipt of information, Forest Range Officer obtained search warrant from Sub-Divisional Forest Officer, Madanapalli and proceeded to house bearing No.III-241-E-7 CTM road, Gollapalle in Madanapalle town with mediators and staff and found five gunny bags of snake skins in the said building and on that, he seized the skins and arrested the accused and produced him before the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Madanapalle and investigation revealed that the accused contravened provisions of Section 39 (3) read with 51 of Wild Life Protection Act and liable for punishment. On these allegations, trial court examined six witnesses and marked seven documents besides five Material Objects on behalf of prosecution. Ex.D.1 is marked on behalf of accused. On an overall consideration of oral and documentary evidence, trial court found the accused guilty for the offence under Section 39(3) read with 51 of Wild Life Protection Act and sentenced him to suffer two years imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, he preferred appeal to the court of Sessions and VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madanapalle on a reappraisal of evidence confirmed the conviction and sentence. Aggrieved by the same, present revision is preferred.
Heard both sides.
Advocate for revision petitioner submitted that prosecution failed to prove ingredients of Section 39(3) read with 51 of Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 and therefore, convicting petitioner for the said offence is not legal. He further submitted that in Ex.P.1, name of the accused is not mentioned and there is a correction with regard to door Number and these aspects through a doubt as to the correctness of the prosecution version and benefit of this aspect is to be given to the accused. He further submitted that prosecution failed to follow procedure contemplated under Section 100(4) Cr.P.C. He further submitted that Ex.P.7 sanction order was not in accordance with law.
On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that both trial court and appellate court have rightly appreciated evidence and also considered these objections, therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings.
Now the point that would arise for my consideration in this revision is whether judgments of the courts below are legal, correct and proper?
5. POINT:
According to prosecution on 4-10-2001 at about 3 P.M., P.W.1 searched the house of accused in the presence of mediators after obtaining necessary search warrant and found 2,223 snake skins in five Gunny Bags and the accused has contravened provisions of Wild Life Protection Act, 1972. Forest Range Officer-the complainant is examined as P.W.1, Deputy Range Officer is examined as P.W.2, the District Forest Officer is examined as P.W.3, one of the mediator i.e., counselor of 32nd ward of Madanapalle Municipality is examined as P.W.4, another mediator is examined as P.W.5 and Sub-Divisional Forest Officer of Madanapalle who issued search warrant is examined as P.W.6.
The main objection of the revision petitioner is that Investigating Officer has not followed Section 100(4) Cr.P.C. But as seen from the evidence of P.W.1, he proceeded to the place of search along with mediators and his staff. These two mediators are examined as P.Ws.4 and 5 and one of them is a ward counselor of Madanapalli Municipality and the other is an independent person. P.Ws.2 and 3 are the Forest Officials who accompanied P.W.1 to the place of search. P.Ws.4 and 5 who are the independent mediators have clearly deposed about the search that was conducted in the house of the accused, and seizure of snake skins. Both these witnesses gave clear account of the search proceedings and their evidence is in conformity with the contents of panchanama recorded at the spot which is marked as Ex.P.3. From the evidence of P.W.6, it is clear that P.W.1 approached him and passed on the information and on satisfying, he issued a search warrant as per the power vested on him under the provisions of the Act. In pursuance of the said search warrant, P.W.1 conducted search in the presence of P.Ws.2 to 5. P.Ws.2 and 3 are the Forest Officials whose evidence is also in conformity with the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5 the independent witnesses. Therefore, objection that provisions under Section 100(4) Cr.P.C. are not followed has no legs to stand in view of the convincing evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5.
The other contention of the petitioner is that ingredients of Section 39 (51) of the Wild Life Protection Act are not attracted.
But as seen from the provisions of the Act, there is a prohibition of hunting any wild animal in contravention of the provisions of the Act, which is a punishment. Here as many as 2,223 snakes skins are seized from the house of the accused. According to the provisions of the Act, the animals specified in Schedules I to IV are wild animals and snakes are also among them and there are some species which are exempted. It is not the case of the accused that the snake skins recovered from him belong to species that are exempted. Both P.Ws.1 to 3 who are the Forest Officers have clearly stated that these skins are in contravention of the provisions of the Act. There is no evidence to show that these snake skins are of the species that are exempted. The learned appellate judge has elaborately discussed each and every aspect with reference to the objection raised on behalf of accused and dealt with the matter in detail and I do not find any wrong appreciation either by trial court or by appellate court.
On a consideration of material, I am of the view that judgments of the courts below are on sound principles and they do not suffer from any illegality or wrong appreciation, on the other hand, their judgments are with sound reasoning.
For these reasons, I am of the view that there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below. Therefore, conviction and sentence imposed against revision petitioner is to be confirmed.
Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence. The trial Court shall take steps to apprehend the accused to undergo the unexpired portion of the sentence.
As a sequel to the disposal of this revision, the Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dated 16-7-2014.
Dvs.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dvs CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.441 OF 2007 Dated 16-7-2014