Mohammed vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Feb 21, 2024

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1293766

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1293766
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice P.Somarajan
Decided On: Feb 21, 2024
Case Number: Crl.Rev.Pet/553/2023

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Mohammed

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....the court on the same day delivered the following:ordera gazette notification issued by the governmentprimarily would come under the purview of public document. when a certified copy was produced by the divisional forest officer after attestation as true copy can be accepted, unless found to be a forged one. that noble principle was not adhered to by the first appellate court, but has adopted an easy method of disposal of a crime registered alleging forest offence by ordering a remand on that flimsy ground. production of original of gazette notification shallnot be insisted invariably in all cases when attested copy is produced and that would be sufficient to discharge the initial burden. section 78 of the evidence act permits admissibility of public documents including notification when it is certified by the head of the said department, if it forms the records kept by that department. necessarily, a certification made by the head of the forest department, divisional forest officer, pertaining to a document kept by them, a gazette notification, would be a valid document admissible in evidence by section 78(1) of the evidence act. necessarily, the remand order passed by the first appellate court is unwarranted and cannot be sustained. the impugnedjudgment will stand set aside with a direction tothe first appellate court to dispose of the matter in accordance with law, for which the parties shall appear on 25/03/2024. the criminal revision petition will stand allowed accordingly. sd/- p.somarajan judge spv

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 2ND PHALGUNA, 1945 CRIME NO.3/2011 OF KARULAI FOREST RANGE OFFICE, MALAPPURAM AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN CRL.A 77/2018 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS COURT (SPECIAL COURT FOR SC/ST (POA) ACT & NDPS ACT CASES), MANJERI CC 27/2013 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II (FOREST OFFENCES), MANJERI REVISION PETITIONER/1ST APPELLANT/1ST ACCUSED: MOHAMMED AGED 61 YEARS S/O ALAVIKKUTTY, MUDAVANKULAVAN HOUSE, CHOLAMUNDA, KARAPPURAM PO, NILAMBUR TALUK,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679331 BY ADVS. P.SAMSUDIN JITHIN LUKOSE MILAN RACHEL MATHEW RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/STATE: STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 BY ADV.SMT. NIMA JACOB -PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 21.02.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

A Gazette notification issued by the Government

primarily would come under the purview of public document. When a certified copy was produced by the Divisional Forest Officer after attestation as true copy can be accepted, unless found to be a forged one. That noble principle was not adhered to by the first appellate court, but has adopted an easy method of disposal of a crime registered alleging forest offence by ordering a remand on that flimsy ground. Production of original of Gazette notification shall

not be insisted invariably in all cases when attested copy is produced and that would be sufficient to discharge the initial burden. Section 78 of the Evidence Act permits admissibility of public documents including notification when it is certified by the head of the said department, if it forms the records kept by that department. Necessarily, a certification made by the head of the forest department, Divisional Forest Officer, pertaining to a document kept by them, a gazette notification, would be a valid document admissible in evidence by Section 78(1) of the Evidence Act. Necessarily, the remand order passed by the first appellate court is unwarranted and cannot be sustained. The impugned

judgment will stand set aside with a direction to

the first appellate court to dispose of the matter in accordance with law, for which the parties shall appear on 25/03/2024. The Criminal Revision Petition will stand allowed accordingly. Sd/- P.SOMARAJAN JUDGE SPV

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2024 Same Parties Mohammed vs State of Kerala Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice P.Somarajan

In accordance with law Public prosecutor appellate court Certified copy Forest officer Attested copy Pertaining to