K. Sreedhar Rao, J.

This Court in Bhanuprakash and Another Vs. State by A.C.F. reported in ILR 2006 Kar 3216 has laid down that in a prosecution of an offence under Section 86 of the Karnataka forest Act (hereinafter called ‘Act’) to prove the guilt of the accused, it is mandatory for the prosecution to prove that the seizing officer under Section 63(2) of the Act has reported the seizure to the confiscating authority under Section 71-A if the forest produce seized is of the nature stated in Section 63(2)(a). The failure to prove the said compliance under Section 62(3) would vitiate the trial. The Court while laying down the ratio relied on the ruling of this Court in Ningappa Bhimappa Gundammanavar and Another Vs. State of Mysore reported in ILR 1973 Kar 897.

2. The revision petitioners were prosecuted for illegal possession of sandal wood billets. The trial Court convicted the petitioners. The appellate Court dismissed the appeal of the petitioners confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed. The convicted accused persons have filed the revisions.

3. The Hon’ble Justice R.B. Naik while dealing with the revision petitions was in disagreement with the view taken in the case