IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Criminal Appeal No(s).  466/2012

STATE OF KARNATAKA                         …Appellant(s)

VERSUS

PRAKASH & ORS.                           …Respondent(s)

WITH

Criminal Appeal No. 467/2012  

STATE OF KARNATAKA        …Appellant(s)

VERSUS

ANIL AND ANR.                       …Respondent(s)

AND

Criminal Appeal No. 468/2012

STATE OF KARNATAKA                      …Appellant(s)

VERSUS

JAYANNA                                  …Respondent(s)

JUDGMENT

N. V. RAMANA   , J.

 These appeals arise out of distinct impugned

judgments passed by the High Court of

Karnataka in Crl. Appeal No. 438/2007, Crl. Appeal No.

1

NON­REPORTABLE

1469/2007 and Crl. Appeal No.

458/2007 respectively  wherein, the  High  Court allowed the

appeals  preferred  by the  accused­respondents  and  acquitted

them of offence under Section 87 of the Karnataka Forest Act

(hereinafter “the Act”) read with Sections 379 and 34 of Indian

Penal Code (IPC). Aggrieved by the above order of acquittal, the

State of Karnataka has preferred these appeals.

2.    It  would  be  appropriate to  note the facts in  brief,

necessary for the disposal of these cases.  The accused persons

were distinctly alleged to have been found transporting

sandalwood in their private vehicles, thereupon they were

intercepted by the concerned Range Forest Officer. The accused

were accordingly charged for offence punishable under Section

87 of the Act, read with Sections 379 and 34 of IPC.

3.  The trial court after appreciation of various evidences

presented before it,  convicted the accused­respondents under

Section 87 of the Act read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced

them to undergo Simple Imprisonment for five years and to pay

a fine of Rs.50,000 individually.

2

4.   Aggrieved by the above order of conviction, the

accused­respondents appealed before the High Court by filing

Crl. Appeal No. 438/2007, Crl. Appeal No. 1469/2007 and Crl.

Appeal  No. 458/2007. The  High  Court  while acquitting the

accused respondents relied upon Section 62C of the Act and

observed  that the  compliance  with  requirements  as  provided

under Section 62C of the Act is mandatory in nature and in

case of non­compliance of the same, charges under Section 87

of the Act cannot be sustained.

5. Aggrieved by the above order of reversal of conviction,

the Appellant­State preferred appeals before this Court. Since

these appeals are based on common question, they were heard

together.

6.   The counsel for the appellant­State  submitted  that

the High Court of Karnataka erred in acquitting the accused­

respondents by wrongly relying on the non­compliance of

Section 62C of the Act without assessing the facts and

circumstances of the case and the nature of the evidence

adduced in its true perspective.

3

7.  On the contrary, the counsel appearing for the

respective accused­Respondents while supporting the judgment

rendered by the High Court, relied on the mandatory nature of

Section 62C of the Act and submitted that the concerned Range

Forest Officer was not authorised to examine the forest produce

as  provided in  Section  62C of the  Act,  hence the  certificate

issued by him cannot be said to be valid.

8.  Having  heard the learned  Counsels from both the

sides, the common contention involved in all the aforesaid

appeals is that although the seized goods of forest produce is

showed and proved by the prosecution as sandalwood by

examining expert, the course adopted for the same was not in

consonance with the provisions of Section 62C of the Act.

9.  On perusal of the facts of cases presented above, we

find that  the prosecution could not  produce any evidence to

show that the concerned Range Forest Officer who issued the

certificate in the present cases was qualified to do the same as

prescribed under the provisions of Section 62C of the Act which

makes it  mandatory that the officer concerned should  have

been authorised by the Government and should have received

4

training for examining the forest produce. The concerned forest

officers have nowhere stated in their evidence that they were

duly  authorised  by the  State  Government  and  competent to

issue the certificates in question.  Going  by the  material on

record, it can be said that the prosecution has failed to prove

that the requirements as contemplated under Section 62C of

the Act were met by the concerned officers before issuing the

impugned certificates. There is also no other admissible

evidence on record in support of the prosecution case that the

confiscated items were sandalwood billets. Under the

circumstances, the High Court was right in setting aside the

order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court by

reaching to the conclusion that the offence under Section 87 of

the Act cannot be said to have been established against  the

accused in accordance with law.

10.  For  all the  aforesaid  reasons,  we find  no  merit in

these appeals  calling  for  our  interference with  the  impugned

orders  passed  by the  High  Court. The criminal appeals are

accordingly dismissed.

   ................................................J (N.V. RAMANA)

5

................................................J (MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR)

NEW DELHI,  AUGUST 30, 2018.

6