Karnataka High Court
B Raju S/O Doddabellegowda vs The State Of Karnataka on 22 August, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:32930
CRL.RP No. 1576 of 2006
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1576 OF 2006
BETWEEN:
B RAJU,
S/O DODDABELLEGOWDA,
AGE MAJOR,
R/AT HALEGANGUR VILLAGE POST,
LINGADHAHALLI HOBLI,
TARIKERE TQ, CHICKAMAGALUR DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI BUDRUNNISA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY RANGE FOREST OFFICER,
KOPPA REP. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE
...RESPONDENT
Digitally (BY SRI CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP)
signed by C THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE
HONNUR SAB ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE
Location: COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
HIGH COURT PASSED IN C.C.NO.707/01 DT.31.7.02 ON THE FILE OF THE
OF JMFC., KOPPA AND ALSO THE JUDGMENT PASSED IN
KARNATAKA CRL.A.NO.70/02 DT.30.6.06 ON THE FILE OF THE S.J., FTC-II,
CHIKMAGALUR.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DICTATING JUDGMENT,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:32930
CRL.RP No. 1576 of 2006
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
This petition is arising against the concurrent findings
of conviction and sentence.
2. Petitioner is tried and convicted for an offence
under Section 87 of The Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 (for
short ‘Act, 1963’). Petitioner is sentenced to simple
imprisonment for 3 years and also directed to pay fine of
Rs.5,000/-.
3. The appeal filed by the petitioner before the
Sessions Court is also dismissed confirming the conviction
and sentence. Hence, the present revision petition.
4. This petition was earlier dismissed by this Court
and the petitioner filed Special Leave Petition before the
Hon’ble Supreme Court. In terms of the order dated
28.03.2025, Special Leave Petition was allowed and the
matter is remitted to this Court for fresh consideration and
the Apex Court noticed that the petition was disposed of
without hearing the counsel for the petitioner, who was not
present when the case was listed for hearing.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:32930
CRL.RP No. 1576 of 2006
HC-KAR
5. Hence, the matter is placed before this Court for
fresh consideration.
6. Prosecution alleged that on 23.08.2001, the
Foresters of Basrikatte and Jayapura were on duty and when
they were near Makkikoppa Bus Stand, they found two
persons moving suspiciously and one among them was
holding a plastic bag and the other was holding a gunny
bag. The forest officials claim that when they made enquiry,
both of them tried to run away. Prosecution claims that both
persons were caught hold off by the forest officials and when
the plastic bag was opened, they found Sandalwood billets.
It is stated that the person who was holding plastic bag is
accused No.1 and accused No.2 was holding gunny bag
containing sandalwood pieces. Forest officials after
investigation have filed the charge sheet.
7. Accused did not plead guilty and they were tried.
Before the Trial Court, prosecution examined 6 witnesses
and produced five documents marked as Exs.P.1 and 5. The
material objects are produced as MOs.1 to 7.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:32930
CRL.RP No. 1576 of 2006
HC-KAR
8. After considering the evidence on record, the Trial
Court found that both accused are guilty of offence under
Section 87 of the Act, 1963 and imposed sentence of three
years simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/- each. The
Sessions Court has dismissed the appeal.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
would urge that Section 62-C of the Act, 1963 mandates that
the person who is issuing the certificate under the Act, 1963,
regarding the specified forest produce is required to be an
Officer above the rank of the Range Forest Officer and also
he is required to undergo training for the said purpose.
10. Learned Counsel for the accused contends that
person who issued the certificate at Ex.P.5, and who has
been examined, does not claim that he has undergone the
training. Thus, it is contended that Ex.P.5 – the alleged
certificate issued under Section 62-C of the Act, 1963 is not
proved and once it is not proved, the prosecution should fail
and the petitioner ought to have been acquitted.
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:32930
CRL.RP No. 1576 of 2006
HC-KAR
11. It is also urged that that contradictions in the
evidence of the witnesses examined on behalf of the
prosecution is not taken note of by the Trial Court and the
Sessions Court and those contradictions would clearly
demonstrate that the prosecution has not proved the case
beyond reasonable doubt.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner would urge that
the mandatory requirement under Section 62(3) of Act, 1963
is not complied inasmuch as after the alleged seizure of
sandal wood from the petitioner, the forest officials have not
reported the matter to the authority under Section 71-A of
the Act, 1963.
13. In addition, the learned counsel for the petitioner
would also urge that the complaint is not filed and entire
case is investigated and tried only on the basis of the
mahazar and same is impermissible.
14. In support of the contention, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner would refer to the judgments of
the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Mr.Muzammil Pasha
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:32930
CRL.RP No. 1576 of 2006
HC-KAR
and others vs. State of Karnataka1 and Ekbal and
Another vs. State of Karnataka2 .
15. Learned High Court Government Pleader would
submit that the offence alleged against the accused is duly
established. Both the accused have been convicted and the
appeal filed by accused No.1 is also dismissed and he has
not filed any revision before this Court challenging the order
of conviction confirmed by the Appellate Court. It is also his
further submission that this Revision Petition was earlier
dismissed after noticing records and the matter is now
remanded by the Supreme Court on the technical ground
that the counsel for the petitioner was not present when the
matter was heard on the earlier occasion, as such, he would
urge that the petition also warrants dismissal.
16. It is also urged that materials seized are admitted
to be Sandalwood, as such, even if there is no certificate
under Section 62-C of the Act, 1963, the accused have to be
convicted as the offence is established as seizure is
1
Crl.A.No.807/2012
2
Crl.A.873/2013
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:32930
CRL.RP No. 1576 of 2006
HC-KAR
established as the petitioner/accused himself has admitted
that what is seized is Sandalwood.
17. Learned High Court Government Pleader would
submit that it was reported to the concerned officer under
Section 62 of the Act, 1963.
18. This Court has taken into consideration all the
contentions raised at the bar and perused the records.
19. Though, the learned counsel for the petitioner
would urge that the requirement of Section 62-C of the Act,
1963 is not complied with inasmuch, no records are
produced to hold that the person who has issued the
certificate under Section 62-C has the requisite training as
contemplated under Section 62-C, this Court is of the view
that the said certificate is not of much consequence in the
present case as the petitioner/accused has not disputed the
fact that the materials seized and placed before the Court
are pieces of Sandalwood.
20. Section 62(3) of The Karnataka Forest Act, 1963
reads as under:
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:32930
CRL.RP No. 1576 of 2006HC-KAR
62. Seizure of property liable to
confiscation.–
(1) XXX
(2) XXX
(3) Every officer seizing any property under this
Section shall, as soon as may be, [make a report
of such seizure,–
(a) where the offence on account of which the
seizure has been made is in respect of timber,
ivory, [Gulmavu (machilus macrantha) bark,
Dalchini bark, Halmaddi (exudation of Ailanthus
malabaricum), canes], firewood or charcoal which
is the property of the State Government or in
respect of sandalwood, to the concerned
authorised Officer under section 71A; and
(b) in other cases, to the magistrate having
jurisdiction to try the offence on account of which
the seizure has been made;]Provided that when the forest produce with respect
to which such offence is believed to have been
committed is the property of Government, and the
offender is unknown, it shall be sufficient if the
officer makes, as soon as may be, a report of the
circumstances to his official superior.
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:32930
CRL.RP No. 1576 of 2006
HC-KAR
21. Section 71-A of The Karnataka Forest Act, 1963
reads as under:
71A. Confiscation by Forest Officers in certain
cases.–(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in
the foregoing provisions of this Chapter [or in any
other law], where a forest offence is believed to
have been committed in respect of timber, [ivory,
[Gulmavu (Machilus marantha) bark, Dalchini bark,
Halmaddi (exudation of Ailantus malabricum),
canes], firewood and charcoal which is the
property of the State Government or in respect of
sandalwood], the officer seizing the property under
sub-section (1) of Section 62 shall, without any
unreasonable delay produce it, together with all
tools, ropes, chains, boats, vehicles and cattle
used in committing such offence, before an officer
authorised by the State Government in this behalf
by Notification in the Official Gazette, not being
below the rank of an Assistant Conservator of
Forests (hereinafter referred to as the authorised
officer):
(2) Where an authorised officer seizes under sub-
section (1) of Section 62 any timber, [ivory,
firewood [Gulmavu (machilus marantha) bark,
Dalchini bark, Halmaddi (exudation of Ailantus
– 10 –
NC: 2025:KHC:32930
CRL.RP No. 1576 of 2006
HC-KAR
Malabricum), canes] and charcoal which is the
property of the State Government or any
sandalwood], or where any such property is
produced before an authorised officer under sub-
Section (1) and he is satisfied that a forest offence
has been committed in respect of such property,
such authorised officer may, whether or not a
prosecution is instituted for the commission of
such forest offence, order confiscation of the
property so seized together with all tools, ropes,
chains, boats, vehicles and cattle used in
committing such offence.
(3) (a) Where the authorised officer, after passing
an order of confiscation under sub-section (2), is of
the opinion that it is expedient in the Forest public
interest so to do, he may, order the confiscated
property or any part thereof to be sold by public
auction.
22. On perusal of the aforementioned provisions, it is
evident that once the items/forest produce mentioned in
Sections 62 and 71-A of Act, 1963 are seized, the concerned
officer shall without any unreasonable delay produce the
same before the officer notified in the Official Gazette not
– 11 –
NC: 2025:KHC:32930
CRL.RP No. 1576 of 2006
HC-KAR
being below the rank of an Assistant Conservator of Forest.
The said provisions deal with the procedure for seizure and
confiscation respectively.
23. On going through the evidence placed on record,
it is noticed that the prosecution has not made any
statement that it has complied with the requirement of
Sections 62 read with 71-A of the Act, 1963 relating to
seizure being reported under Section 71-A. No document is
produced to hold that Section 71-A of the Act of 1963 is
complied. This Court in this case is not recording a finding
as to whether non-compliance of provisions of Sections 62
and 71-A of the Act, 1963 vitiates entire proceeding.
24. However, the judgment of co-ordinate bench of
this Court in Ekbal supra applies to the facts of the present
case. In the case of Ekbal supra it is held that the
proceeding cannot be initiated based on spot mahazar. In
the instant case the proceeding is initiated based on spot
mahazar and not on the basis of any complaint.
– 12 –
NC: 2025:KHC:32930
CRL.RP No. 1576 of 2006
HC-KAR
25. It is also relevant to notice that in the cross
examination the alleged witness to the spot mahazar has
stated that he is not in a position to state as to which of the
accused was holding the bags alleged to have been seized by
the Forest officials. The said witness has also stated he does
not know when the numbers on the sandalwood billets have
been written.
26. It is well settled principle of law that prosecution
has to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and has
failed to do so. Under these circumstances the benefit of
doubt is to be given to the petitioner/accused. Both Courts
have not noticed the fact that the proceeding is initiated only
based on spot mahazar.
27. Hence, the following:
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned judgment dated 30.06.2006 in
Crl.A.No.70/2002 on the file of II Additional
Sessions Judge, Chikkamagalur and the
– 13 –
NC: 2025:KHC:32930
CRL.RP No. 1576 of 2006
HC-KAR
judgment dated 31.07.2002 in
CC.No.707/2001 on the file of JMFC, Koppa
are set-aside.
(iii) The petitioner is acquitted of the charge
under Section 87 of the Karnataka Forest
Act, 1963.
(iv) Bail bond if any, stands cancelled.
(v) The petitioner shall be released forthwith.
Sd/-
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
JUDGE
brn/GVP
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 33