Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 548 (KAR)

SHEKAR v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

2004-09-16

MOHAN M.SHANTANAGOUDAR

body2004
MOHAN SHANTANAGOUDAR, J. ( 1 ) SRI B. A. Belliappa, learned H. C. G. P. , accepts notice on behalf of respondent. ( 2 ) HEARD both the Advocates. ( 3 ) THE petitioner is convicted for the offences punishable under Section 86 and 87 of the karnataka Forest Act by learned JMFC. , Mudigere. The said judgment is confirmed by Fast track Court-II, Chikkamagalore in Crl. A. No. 66/2002. Both the Judgments and orders are assailed in this revision petition. ( 4 ) BRIEF facts of the prosecution case are as under: at about 9 p. m. on 23-7-2000, the petitioner and another were found cutting sandle wood tree in sy. No. 227 situated at Maranahalli belonging to Bharat Ra. The accused were illegally possessing 50 kgs of sandle wood billets with a view to transport the same to Kasaragodu. They were charged, tried and convicted for the offences under Sections 86 and 87 of Karnataka Forest act as aforesaid. Three witnesses were examined and four documents and nine material objects are got marked on behalf of the prosecution before the Trial Court. ( 5 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the Fast Track Court has not at all considered the material on record, while coming to the conclusion, learned HCGP fairly concedes on this aspect. The contention of the learned advocates is well founded as can seen from the impugned judgment of Fast Track Court. ( 6 ) THE impugned Judgment of the Fast Track Court is cryptic inasmuch as it does not at all discuss the evidence of the prosecution witnesses on record. Even the facts are not forthcoming from the Judgment. As the Fast Track Court is the first and last Court of appeal in this category of cases, it has to consider, discuss, appreciate and weigh the material on record in its entirety before coming to the conclusion. The criminal matters are mainly decided on the basis of facts of each case. The appellate Court is virtually the last Court to appreciate the facts in depth. But unfortunately, on the other hand, in this appeal, vague observations are made while coming to the conclusion by the Fast Track Court. It has disposed of the appeal within one paragraph containing virtually six sentences. The appellate Court is virtually the last Court to appreciate the facts in depth. But unfortunately, on the other hand, in this appeal, vague observations are made while coming to the conclusion by the Fast Track Court. It has disposed of the appeal within one paragraph containing virtually six sentences. The reasons assigned and conclusion arrived at by the Past Track Court are as under: reasons "on careful consideration of the case on hand, the learned Counsel for the appellant has failed to substantiate and convince this Court how and on what grounds the judgment of the trial Court is unsustainable one. I have carefully gone through the evidence both oral and documentary and the way in which the evidence has been appreciated by the trial Court, which is perfectly legal and proper. He has also failed to point out what are all the discrepancies or infirmities in the evidence let in by the prosecution. The trial Court did not place any burden on the accused as it was contended by the appellant. Viewed from any angle, the judgment of the trial court is perfectly legal and proper. Even the quantum of punishment is most reasonable one. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the judgment of the trial Court is sustainable one. So, I answer the said point accordingly and I proceed to pass the following. ORDER the appeal is dismissed. " Such casual approach of the presiding officer of the Fast Track Court while disposing of the criminal appeal is deprecated. The Fast Track Court has not applied its mind to the facts of the case while coming to the conclusion. It is relevant to observe here itself that, this is not the solitary Judgment wherein this Fast Track-Court has passed such cryptic order. I have came across atleast four judgments, wherein this Fast Track Court has disposed off appeals by making almost similar vague observations. Mere disposal of the case is different from deciding the case on merits. Disposal of cases without application of mind will harm the society at large. As the life and liberty of citizen are involved in such matters, the Courts should not be casual in their approach. Under such circumstances, it is not possible for this Court to sustain the judgment of the appellate Court, which is non-speaking one. Hence, the following order is made: order the appeal is allowed. As the life and liberty of citizen are involved in such matters, the Courts should not be casual in their approach. Under such circumstances, it is not possible for this Court to sustain the judgment of the appellate Court, which is non-speaking one. Hence, the following order is made: order the appeal is allowed. The Judgment and order dated 20. 07. 2004 passed by the Fast Track court-II, Chikmagalur in Crl. A. No. 66/2002 is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Fast Track Court-II, Chickmagalur for fresh disposal in accordance with law by keeping the above observations in mind.