THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.48 of 2005 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the judgment dated 12.01.2005 on the file of VI Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC),Tirupathi in Criminal Appeal No.102 of 2003 whereby and whereunder the conviction and sentence imposed on A1 to A3 by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Piler by judgment dated 10.4.2003 in C.C.No.79 of 2001, was confirmed. 2. That on 21.2.1993 at about 6.00 p.m. the forest officials found the accused 1 to 3 processing the sandal wood billets in Motacheruvu locality and they arrested A1 since A2 and A3 managed to escape 24 billets of sandalwood, 2 knives and an axe were seized. As per the confessional statement of A1, A2 and A3 participated in the commission of offence. The forest officials seized the contraband and other material and placed before the Forest Range Officer, Bhakarapet and registered a crime vide O.R.No.303/92-93 and investigated into the matter and charge sheet was laid and a case was taken on file in C.C.No.79 of 2001 for the offence under Section 20(1) (c) (iii) read with Section 20 (d)(i) of A.P. Forest Act, 1957. 3. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.7, besides M.Os 1 to 24 sandalwood billets. However, no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked on behalf of the defence. 4. Taking into consideration the evidence of PW.1, Forest Section Officer, who arrested and seized the contraband from A1, and also the evidence of PW.2, Beat Officer who assisted PW.1 during the course of arrest, seizure of contraband and investigation, as well as Ex.P.1- special proceedings and Ex.P.3 confessional statement of A.1, the trial court found the accused guilty for the offence under Section 20 (1) (c) (iii) read with Section 20(d) (i) of A.P. Forest Act,1957 and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for three months each and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default, simple imprisonment for two weeks each for the said offence. Aggrieved by conviction and sentences, the petitioners filed Criminal Appeal No.102 of 2003 on the file of VI Additional District andf Sessions Judge, (FTC), Tirupati. The appellate court after re-appreciating the evidence and other material on record, confirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court. Challenging the same, the present criminal revision case has been filed by the petitioners. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned public prosecutor. 6. It is the case of the petitioners-accused that A2 and A3 were arrested on the basis of Ex.P.3-confessional statement of A1 alleged to have been recorded while he was in the custody of the forest officials and the same goes to the root of the prosecution case and as such the whole proceedings initiated against the petitioners are vitiated. 7. It is further case of the petitioners-accused that the prosecution did not examine any independent witnesses excepting examining official witnesses i.e. Forest Section Officer as PW.1, Beat Officer as PW.2 and Forest Range Officer as PW3. Since PWs 1 to 3 are official and interested witnesses, their evidence cannot withstand the legal scrutiny. Therefore, the trial court has committed error and misdirected itself in finding A1 to A3 guilty for the offence under Section 20 (1) ( c) (iii) read with Section 20(d) (i) of A.P. Forest Act,1957. 8. It is to be noted that the provisions of Evidence Act do not strictly extend to the Forest Act. It is stated to be a special enactment. Moreover, basing on Ex.P.3, the confessional statement of A1, A2 and A3 were arrested. Therefore, their plea that they are falsely implicated cannot be accepted in view of their escape from the place of offence and in view of seizure of the M.Os 1 to 24 from the place of offence. 9. In the circumstances, the trail court said to have committed any error or irregularity in believing the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 coupled with Ex.P.3-confessional statement of A1 and seizure of M.Os 1 to 3 and in convicting the petitioner-accused for the said offence vis-à-vis the impugned judgment of the VI Additional and Sessions Judge (FTC) Court in confirming the same. 10. In the result, the revision case fails and the same is dismissed. _______________ B.N.RAO NALLA, J Dated:19.02.2010 stp