The Supreme Court today transferred the cheating case against Kerala businessmen Anto Augustine, Roji Augustine, etc., over the Muttil tree felling case to the Special Forest Court, which is trying the offences under the Kerala Forest Act.

The Court passed directions on the interplay between the offences committed under the Kerala Forest Act, 1961 and the offence committed under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, now Section 318 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) in the Muttil tree-felling case in Wayanad, transferring the cheating case from the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC, Chottanikkara) to the Special Court established under the Kerala Forest Act. It has also clarified that the two cases are to be tried one after the other, not simultaneously, and evidence in both the cases are to be recorded separately.

A bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice K Vinod Chandran passed directions in the petition filed by Roji Augustine, one of the accused in the Muttil tree-felling case, against the Kerala High Court's order dismissing his plea seeking stay of trial in the cheating case pending before the JMFC Chottanikkara.

Perusing the facts of the case, Justice JB Pardiwala observed that the case arises out of the 2021 Muttil tree-felling controversy. The Chief Conservator of Forests, Northern Circle had constituted a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to probe the allegations levelled against the petitioner with respect to collection, felling and sale of the timber. The SIT found that the petitioner had failed to maintain mandatory records, including stocks, purchase and sales registers, and that the timber had been illegally felled on forest land and transported using fabricated documents. On this basis, an FIR was registered against the accused (petitioner) alleging offences under Sections 27(1)(b), (e), (iii) (iv), 39, 40, 52, 61A of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961 and under Rules 12 and 23 of the Kerala Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1975.

Simultaneously, one MM Aliyar of Malabar Timbers also lodged a case under Section 420 IPC, alleging that he had been cheated by the accused/petitioner by supplying them with illegally produced timber worth Rs 1.4 Crore.

The petitioner had sought a stay of the cheating case before the trial court until the final report was filed in the forest case, contending that the two cases arose from the same transaction and that the outcome of the forest case would have a bearing on his defence in the cheating case. The Magistrate court rejected the plea. Subsequently, the Kerala High Court also dismissed the petitioner's challenge, holding that the statutory bar under Section 233 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 applies only where both proceedings concern the same offence, and not merely the same underlying transaction, noting that the two cases had been registered by different police stations and were pending before different courts. The High Court, in fact, directed the JMFC Chottanikkara to commence the trial in the case from 22 September (today) and dispose of it within six months.

Aggrieved by the High Court's ruling, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court.

Before the Supreme Court, the State submitted that the prayer of the petitioner was to stay the trial till the final report is filed. The State apprised the bench that the final report in the matter has been filed on September 17, 2026. On this, the bench asked the petitioner to approach the High Court and apprise it of the filing of the final report in the case.

The bench framed the issues for consideration as whether the offence under the Forest Act and the cheating case ought to be tried together, and if so, whether simultaneously. On this, the State pointed out that there was no prayer before the High Court seeking consolidation of the cases. It was also pointed out that the FIRs are distinct, the districts are different, the cases are different as one is of cheating and the other one is under the Forest Act.

Perusing the submissions, the Court remarked on the anomaly that could arise from parallel prosecutions on overlapping facts. It posed the query that if the petitioner would be acquitted in the complaint case, it would be difficult to see how he could continue to be prosecuted on the same facts in the other case. 

“He may be the biggest threat in the world, but then if he is acquitted in the complaint, how can he be prosecuted in the other case,” the bench questioned.

Observing that since the offence under the Forest Act is triable by the Special Court and 420 IPC is tried by JMFC, the case under Section 420 IPC would also be tried by the same Special Court, but the two trials are to proceed one after the other, and not simultaneously, with evidence in each case being recorded separately. Further, the bench directed the JMFC Chottanikkara to transfer the cheating case to the Special Court.

“We are of the view that since offences relating to the Forest Act are to tried by the Special Court, let the case arising from the case lodged by the complainant also be tried by that very same court, however, one after the other. Evidence will be recorded separately in both the cases,” the Court ordered, disposing of the SLP.

Case: Roji Augustine v State of Kerala (Diary no. 57617/2026)

Appearance:

For Petitioner: Senior Advocate R Basant, Vishnu P, Adv.

For State : Sr Adv MR Ramesh Babu, Adv Aljo Joseph

Complainant: Sr Adv Nikhil Goel, Adv Abid Ali Beeran.