JUDGMENT - A.A. HALBE, J.:---This application raises an important question as to whether the statements recorded by the Range Forest Officer of the accused, during the investigation of a forest offence under the Indian Forests Act, 1927, are hit by section 25 or 30 of the Evidence Act. The petitioner is involved in an offence under section 52 of the Indian Forest Act read with Rule 64 of the G.D.D. Forest Rules, 1964 for possessing illegally forest timber. This transaction involved as many as nine persons and the petitioner is designated as accused No. 1 and rest of them are accused Nos. 2 to 9.

2. To the facts, reference may be made later. The Range Forest Officer, soon after seizure of the illegally cut wood, recorded the statements of those accused and it was disclosed from those statements that all the accused were involved in cutting, removing and possessing the illegally cut wood. The learned Magistrate, in Criminal Case No. 22/N/1992, on an elaborate consideration, found that the present petitioner and accused Nos. 8 and 9 in the original complaint had to be discharged because except their statements and the statements of other accused, there was no other independent evidenc

Click Here to Read the rest of this document