Absence Of Evidence & Unexplained 6-Year Delay In Filing Complaint: Madras High Court Discharges Ex-MP S.R. Parthiban In Forest Encroachment Case

"Therefore, the entire charge is without the semblance of any oral or documentary evidence. The prosecution filed the final report without any supporting evidence." Madras High Court, in a significant order, held that a criminal prosecution cannot be sustained when there is a total lack of oral or documentary evidence to support the charges.

A single-judge bench of Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan observed that the prosecution failed to provide substantive material to link the former Member of Parliament, S.R. Parthiban, to allegations of forest land encroachment and theft of natural resources.

The petitioner, S.R. Parthiban, a former Member of Parliament for the Salem Constituency, was arrayed as the first accused in a case involving alleged trespassing into forest land and the illegal laying of a road. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, along with others, had cut down 888 trees and removed minerals from forest land in Periyasathapadi Village, Salem, to access adjacent private property.

The primary issue before the Court was whether there was sufficient material on record to frame charges against the petitioner under Sections 353, 379, 447, 506(ii), 403, and 176 read with Section 109 of the IPC, and Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992. The Court also examined the impact of a six-year delay in reporting the alleged tree-cutting incident.

Court Highlights Unexplained Six-Year Delay In Allegations

The Court noted that while the Forest Officials conducted an inspection on June 18, 2019, the allegations regarding the cutting of trees and laying of a road pertained to January 2013. The bench observed that the prosecution provided no explanation as to why the Forest Officials had not inspected the land comprised in Survey No.66/15 for nearly six years.

The bench remarked that if the land had not been inspected for such a long duration, it remained unclear how the prosecution arrived at the specific figure of 888 trees being cut. The Court found it improbable that the species and value of the trees could be precisely determined after such a significant lapse of time without any interim records of the forest's state.

Lack Of Evidence Regarding Tree Felling And Mineral Theft

Justice Ilanthiraiyan pointed out that even according to the prosecution’s own final report, there was no recovery of cash or timber from the accused. Furthermore, the Court observed that no witness had come forward to speak about the actual act of cutting the trees or provide a basis for the valuation of the allegedly stolen minerals.

"The prosecution has also failed to produce any evidence regarding the alleged illegal gain obtained by the accused through the sale of trees and minerals or the damage allegedly caused to the forest land so as to substantiate the charge under the Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992."

Petitioner Did Not Own Land Requiring Access Road

The High Court took into account the submission that the petitioner did not own any land adjacent to the forest area in question. While the prosecution argued that Accused Nos. 2 and 3 (the petitioner's brother and friend) owned the adjacent land, the Court noted that they had already sold the property via a registered sale deed in May 2019, prior to the inspection by Forest Officials.

The bench observed that the statement of the Sub-Registrar confirmed the ownership of the adjacent land by other accused persons and not the petitioner. Consequently, the theory that the petitioner encroached upon forest land to create an access road for his personal benefit lacked a factual foundation.

Mere Mention Of Name By Co-Accused Not Sufficient For Prosecution

Regarding the incident on June 18, 2019, where the fourth accused allegedly threatened officials using the petitioner's name, the Court held that such a statement in a phone call, in the absence of any overt act by the petitioner, was insufficient to frame criminal charges. The bench emphasized that the petitioner was not present at the scene of the occurrence.

The Court also addressed the charge under Section 403 IPC regarding the alleged misuse of MLA funds to install solar lights. It found that the registered sale deeds of the adjacent property did not disclose any such construction or installation on the land, further weakening the prosecution's claim of misappropriation.

Concluding that no charge was made out against the petitioner on the basis of the produced oral and documentary evidence, the High Court set aside the order of the Principal Sessions Judge, Salem. The Court allowed the revision petition and discharged S.R. Parthiban from all the charges levelled against him in the case.

"There is absolutely no explanation for the belated allegation made after a lapse of six years... the allegations against the petitioner were made after six years, without any substantive material to support them."

Date of Decision: 02 July 2026