Ibrahim vs Forest Range Officer

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Oct 09, 2023

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1344983

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/1344983
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice P.Somarajan
Decided On: Oct 09, 2023
Case Number: Crl.Rev.Pet/83/2006

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ibrahim

Respondent

Forest Range Officer

Excerpt

.....on 09.10.2023, the court on the same day delivered the following:orderthe revision is by the 4th accused against the concurrent finding of guilt of accused for the offence under section 27 (1) (d) of kerala forest act, 1961. the accused no.4 was found in possession of wooden logs, which is a subject of the offence alleged against accused nos. 1 to 3, who were alleged to have trespassed into the forest area and cut and removed the tree. the accused no.4 is the owner of a furniture shop. the wooden logs were seized from his custody, which are tallying with the tree alleged to have been cut and removed. there is no explanation for the possession of the abovesaid wooden logs by the accused no.4. the concurrent finding rendered by both the courts below on the basis of factual matrix cannot be interfered with unless there is absurdity, material irregularity, impropriety or illegality. nothing was brought to the notice of this court to have interference with the concurrent finding rendered by both the courts below.2. the sentence awarded is the minimum which canbe imposed for the offence under section 27 (1)(d) of kerala forest act. sub-section 2 was omitted by the act of 1993. the present offence was committed subsequent to the deletion of sub-section 2. necessarily, there is no reason to interfere with the finding of conviction of the accused and the sentence awarded. hence, the crl.revision petition fails, and is dismissed.sd/- p.somarajan judge msp

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN MONDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 17TH ASWINA, 1945 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 24/09/2004 IN CC 175/2003 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -I, THODUPUZHA AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 31.08.2005 IN CRA 287/2004 OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS AND DISTRICT COURT (NDPS), THODUPUZHA REVISION PETITIONER/APPELLANT IN CRL.A.287/2004/ACCUSED: IRAHIM, S/O MUHAMMED, MUNDIKKUNNEL VEETTIL, VANNAPPURAM KARA, THODUPUZHA. SRI.N.RATHEESHA SMT.SUMA RATHEESH RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: 1 FOREST RANGE OFFICER, MULLARINGAD 2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI ARAVIND V MATHEW, SRI NAGARAJ NARAYANAN, SPL GP FOREST SRI. NAGARAJ NARAYANAN (SPL.GOVERNMENT PLEADER) SRI.ARAVIND V. MATHEW (GOVERNMENT PLEADER) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09.10.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

The revision is by the 4th accused against the concurrent finding of guilt of accused for the offence under Section 27 (1) (d) of Kerala Forest Act, 1961. The accused No.4 was found in possession of wooden logs, which is a subject of the offence alleged against accused Nos. 1 to 3, who were alleged to have trespassed into the forest area and cut and removed the tree. The accused No.4 is the owner of a furniture shop. The wooden logs were seized from his custody, which are tallying with the tree alleged to have been cut and removed. There is no explanation for the possession of the abovesaid wooden logs by the accused No.4. The concurrent finding rendered by both the courts below on the basis of factual matrix cannot be interfered with unless there is absurdity, material irregularity, impropriety or illegality. Nothing was brought to the notice of this court to have interference with the concurrent finding rendered by both the courts below.

2. The sentence awarded is the minimum which can

be imposed for the offence under Section 27 (1)(d) of Kerala Forest Act. Sub-section 2 was omitted by the act of 1993. The present offence was committed subsequent to the deletion of sub-section 2. Necessarily, there is no reason to interfere with the finding of conviction of the accused and the sentence awarded. Hence, the Crl.Revision Petition fails, and is dismissed.

Sd/- P.SOMARAJAN JUDGE msp

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2023 Same Parties Ibrahim vs Forest Range Officer Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice P.Somarajan