This is the revision petition preferred by petitioners/accused Nos. 1 and 2, challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment and order dated 30th January 2010 passed by the JMFC Court at Bhadravathi in C.C.No.5571/2006 and also the order dated 29th January 2011 passed by the Fast Track Court at Bhadravathi, in Criminal Appeal No. 11 of 2010.

2. By its judgment and order of conviction, the Trial Court convicted the revision petitioners-accused No. 1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 104(A) of the Karnataka Forest Act. When the revision petitioners preferred the appeal which came to be dismissed confirming the judgment and order passed by the trial court.

3. Brief facts of the prosecution case before the trial court that on 16.10.2003, Gangur Section Forest officials were returning after patrolling the area of Siddarahalli Acacia Nedutopu and at that time, they heard the sound of cutting tree and on carefully watching the area, the forest officials found two persons were cutting a tree with axe and upon seeing the forest officials, they started to run away by throwing away the axe. The accused were arrested and brought to the place of spot where the tree was being cut. It was a big tree and two pieces of tree was cut and upon enquiry, the accused did not possess the valid permit or pass for possessing the tree. Immediately the properties were seized and engrossed with a forest seal and axe was also seized. A mahazar was drawn at the spot with help of forest officials as no independent witness was available. The properties were cut tree and materials at the spot. The FOC number was obtained by contacting the office and a mahazar was drawn at 5.00 PM. The Investigating Officer has recorded the statement of witnesses and filed the charge sheet against the revision petitioners for the said offence under Section 104(A) of the Karnataka Forest Act.

4. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners-accused and also the learned HCGP representing the respondent-State.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners during the course of arguments made the submission that looking to the materials placed before the court, firstly, the mandatory requirement of Section 62 of the Karnataka Forest Act, were not at all complied with by the forest officials. It is also his contention that looking to the evidence of PW 1 and 2 who are also the officials of the same department there is no consistency in their evidence and the evidence of PW1 and 2 is contradictory with each other. Learned counsel submitted that at one stretch, the witnesses deposed that after hearing the sound of cutting the tree, they have seen the accused persons at the distance of 150 ft.

Learned counsel submitted that it is not the case of the prosecution that the accused persons were seen when they were in the process of cutting the tree or when the accused persons possessed the billets which were said to have seized from their possession. Counsel also made the submission that even with regard to the seizure mahazar which was said to have been prepared at the spot, the evidence of P.W.1 and 2 is contrary and it creates a doubt in the mind of the court. In this regard learned counsel for the revision petitioners taken the court through the evidence of prosecution witnesses. He also made the submission that the FIR was not at all produced before the court nor it was tendered in evidence during the course of the trial proceedings. But even then the learned Magistrate has taken this document into consideration while writing the judgment. Hence he submitted that this procedure adopted by the trial court itself is illegal. He also submitted that FIR is the main document, when that itself was not produced by the prosecution, then it cannot be said that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. He submitted that all these material aspects were not at all appreciated by the court below even thought it w