The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for compliance with the mandatory provisions of the Karnataka Forest Act, specifically regarding the authorization for the certificate provided by a Forest Officer.

B.V. PINTO, J.-This criminal appeal is filed under Section 374 Cr.P.C. against the judgment dt. 17.12.2007 passed by the Dist. & S.J., U.K, Karwar in S.C. No. 8/2006 convicting the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 86 of Karnataka Forest Act, and etc.1. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated 17.12.2007 passed in S.C. No. 8/2006 by the learned Sessions Judge, U.K, Karwar, convicting the appellants of the offence under Section 86 of the Karnataka Forest Act (hereinafter referred to as 'K.F. Act' for brevity) and sentencing them to undergo R.I. for 7 years and 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- each, in default of payment of fine to undergo imprisonment for a period of 3 months.

2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 30.06.2005 at about 7.15 p.m. at Sirsi-Karigundi road, the appellants were found transporting sandal wood of 5 kgs worth Rs. 4,000/- without having valid permit, thereby they are alleged to have committed the offence under Section 86 of K.F. Act.

3. After securing the presence of the accused before the Court, the prosecution in order to prove the case has examined in all 4 witnesses and got marked documents as per Ex.P.1 to 4 and produced samples of billets at M.O.1 to 4. The defence of the accused was one of total denial, however, by the judgment impugned in this appeal, the learned Sessions Judge was pleased to convict the appellants herein and sentenced them as aforesaid. Being aggrieved by the said order of conviction and sentence, the accused have filed this appeal.

4. Heard Sri Ganapathi Bhat, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Banakar, learned S.P.P. for the State.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submit that that the prosecution has not adduced any independent evidence and that the witnesses examined by the prosecution are only the official witnesses. It is further submitted by him that at the time when the offence was committed, it was a busy road and therefore there would naturally be some independent persons. Since no independent witnesses are examined by the prosecution, the accused are entitled for an acquittal. It is further submitted by him that PW2 is the officer who has given a certificate as per Ex.P.1 to the effect that the seized material is sandalwood. However, P.W.2 has not given any authorization as required under Section 62(c) of the K.F. Act authorizing him to issue certificates after testing the wood as sandalwood. In the absence of authorization given to him by the State to issue such a certificate, the very conviction is bad in law. He has cited a ruling reported in 2010 (3) AIR Kar. R. 110 (Raghavendrachari vs. State of Karnataka) wherein it is stated as under:

"Forest Act (16 of 1927), Sections 62C and 87-Illegal transportation of sandalwood billets-Conviction under Section 87 of Act-Challenge as to-Sandalwood alleged to have been seized from accused from check post by Range Officer-Seized material examined by Assistant Forest Conservator and he issued a certificate-However, no independent witness examined in support of prosecution other than concerned officials-Also certificate has not been issued by authorized officer as prescribed under Section 62C of Act, which cannot be relied on-Nothing on record to connect guilt with accused-Accused was given benefit of doubt and acquitted."

He further submits that the prosecution has not proved the case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. Hence he submits that the accused may be acquitted by allowing this appeal.

6. Sri Banakar, learned S.P.P. for the State, on the other hand submits that the prosecution has examined P.W.1 who has stated that on the date of offence the accused-appellants were found in possession of Sandalwood without any valid permit or licence and therefore they have committed the offence under Section 86 of K.F. Act. There is no animosity between the accused and the prosecution witnesses so as to falsely implicate these appellants. He submits that t