State of Karnataka vs Dharma

B.V. Pinto, J.—Though this appeal has been posted for admission, having regard to the orders to be passed, I have taken up the case for final disposal. Heard Sri. G.M. Srinivasa Reddy, learned HCGP for the State.

This appeal has been filed seeking to enhance the sentence imposed on the respondent as imposed by the Civil Judge and Addl. JMFC, Tarikere in C.C. No. 175/2012 whereunder the learned Magistrate has accepted the plea of guilt of the respondent and convicted him for the offence under Sections 24(e) and 50 of Forest Act r/w Rules 144 punishable under Rule 165 of Karnataka Forest Rules and directed him to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo S.I. for one month.

The learned HCGP for the State submits that the said sentence is inadequate and that the same may be enhanced after due notice to the respondent.

It is seen from the provisions of Karnataka Forest Act that, the penalty prescribed for violation of Section 24(e) is imprisonment for one month or fine which may extend up to Rs. 2,000/- or both. Section 50 is not a penal section. Rule 1, Section 165 of the Karnataka Forest Rules prescribes a punishment of imprisonment for six months or fine which may extend to Rs. 500/- or both.

In this case, the allegation is that the accused had transported teak wood logs worth Rs. 9,500/- without any permission under Rule 144 of the Karnataka Forest Rules and the said violation is punishable with fine up to Rs. 2,000/-. The offence was detected on 1.6.06.2011 and the accused was arrested and produced before the Court and subsequently he was released on bail. After appearance for about 11/2 years before the Court regularly, on 18.01.2013 the accused decided to plead guilty to the charge and on such plea of guilt, the learned Magistrate has imposed a fine of Rs. 1,000/- which is permissible under the provision of law. Having regard to the fact that the transportation of teak wood logs was not from the Government land nor belongs to the Government as there is no charge for the same, for simple violation of not obtaining the permission as required under Rules 144 and 165, he has been punished with fine of Rs. 1,000/-, which I am of the opinion is neither inadequate nor improper. In that view of the matter, this appeal has no merits and the same is dismissed.