ORDER :

This petition is filed by the accused – petitioners herein seeking for a direction to set aside the orders dated 29.09.2011 passed by the Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.49/2011 and Crl.A.31/2011 confirming the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court in C.C.No.4275/2006 dated 24.01.2011. By the said order of the Trial Court, the petitioners have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 104A of the Karnataka Forest Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,500/- each, which has been confirmed by the Appellate Court.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned HCGP for the respondent – State.

3. Factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that on 23.09.2002 when the Forest Guard and his staff were on patrol duty in the forest area by foot, when they came near 1998 year Acacia Neduthopu, they found a person having an axe in his hand. On seeing the Forest officials, that person had run away towards the jungle. The other two persons who were following him with rosewood logs threw the logs and had also run away. Though the officials had chased them, the accused could not be secured. They had then seized the rosewood logs under a mahazar. The official staff then had carried out panchanama in the place where the rosewood was cut with the help of an axe and mahazar was conducted at the spot. The Investigating Officer had recorded the statement of witnesses and filed the charge-sheet. Subsequent to laying the charge-sheet Accused Nos.1 to 3 put in their appearance through their counsel but they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Subsequently, the prosecution in all examined PWs 1 to 4 and got marked photographs in order to evidence the rosewood logs said to have been seized from the accused. The statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. but the accused did not come forward to adduce any defence evidence as contemplated under Section 233 Cr.P.C. After hearing the arguments advanced by the prosecution and the defence counsel, the Trial Court by its order dated 24.01.2011 in C.C.No.4275/2006 convicted the accused for offence under Section 104A of the Karnataka Forest Act and sentenced them as aforesaid.

Being aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.49/2011 and Crl.A.No.31/2011, which came to be dismissed by order dated 29.09.2011 thus confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court. It is these judgments which are under challenge in this petition by the petitioners, urging various grounds.

4. Learned counsel Shri B.S. Prasad for the petitioners has taken me through the evidence of PWs 1 to 4. They are the forest official witnesses. His contention is that their evidence is not cogent and reliable in order to secure conviction in respect of Accused Nos.1 to 3. It is further contended that the Investigating Officer has not followed the mandatory provisions of Section 62A of the Karnataka Forest Act. He contends that on this sole ground alone, accused ought to be acquitted for the aforesaid offences. It is his further contention that the prosecution even though has not adduced any reliable evidence, the Trial Court has misdirected and misinterpreted the evidence of PWs 1 to 4 and convicted the accused. Therefore, he contends that there are discrepancies in the evidence of these witnesses on which ground the accused ought to be acquitted on the benefit of doubt.

The last limb of argument of the learned counsel is that the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court committed a serious error in convicting the accused for the offence under Section 104-A of the Forest Act. Even though the prosecution has not elicited evidence to probabilise that the accused persons were found in the scene of crime in the forest area in order to cut the rosewood tree which was said to have