JUDGMENT

P.K. Musahary, J.—The accused petitioner being convicted under Section 42 of the India Forest Act, 1927 and sentenced to suffer R.I. for two months by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Tripura, Agartala in C.R. 388 of 2001 preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala. The said criminal appeal No. 47(3)/2001 was dismissed by the judgment dated 8.8.2002. Being aggrieved, the instant criminal revision petition has been filed challenging the aforesaid judgment dated 6.7.2001 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Tripura and also the judgment dated 8.8.2002 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala.

2. Heard Mr. S. Kar Bhowmik, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R.C. Debnath, learned P.P. In-charge for the respondent.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 2.2.2001, at around 6.30 a.m., while the complainant, Sri Bul Bul Das, Forester being accompanied by other staff of the Forest Department was on circuit duty at Chakmaghat Area, found the accused petitioner, namely, Ranabir Bhowmik, proceeding towards Teliamura from Chakmaghat driving an auto rickshaw loaded with some sawn timber. The accused petitioner drove away the auto rickshaw at high speed without respondent to his signal and suddenly it dashed against the vehicle of the complainant and his staff on the spot and on search they recovered some sawn gamair timber from the auto rickshaw. As the accused petitioner could not show any transit for carrying the timber, the complainant seized twelve pieces of gamair timber including auto rickshaw together with keys in presence of the witnesses by preparing a seizure list. The seized timber had no hammer mark of the Forest Department. An offence report was prepared in which it was stated that by transporting timber in an unauthorized manner, the accused petitioner has contravened the Forest law and caused loss of Government royalty to the tune of Rs. 20,000 approximately. It was stated in the offence report that the seized auto rickshaw was dealt with separately under the provision of Section 52A of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. Accordingly, the complainant launched prosecution against the accused petitioner for contravention of the provisions of Section 26(1) and 42 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and cognizance of offence was taken under Section 42 of the said Act.

4. The accused petitioner was examined by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Tripura, Agartala under Section 251, Cr.P.C. on the basis of the offence report. The substance of the acquisition was explained to the accused petitioner to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to stand trial. No witness was examined by the accused petitioner in his defence. The prosecution examined as many as three witnesses including the complainant.

5. PW1, Sri Bul Bul Das, who was posted at Teliamura DFPP as Forester reiterated the statements made in the offence report and testified that twelve pieces of Gamair timber were recovered from the auto rickshaw of the accused petitioner and the same were seized in presence of the witnesses, namely, (1) Bikash Roy, a local man (2) Sankar Bhowmik, Forester, (3) Sri Banka Ch. Nath, Forest Guard and (4) Sri Naresh Ch. Roy, Forest Guard. The seizure list was exhibited as Exbt. 1. The seized 12 pieces of Gamair timber have been marked as Exbt. M.O. series. In his cross-examination, the complainant PW1 stated that there was movement of the people in the road at the time when he apprehended the accused petitioner and there were houses of some people nearby the place of occurrence, i.e., at the place where the auto rickshaw alongwith the said gamair timber were seized. It was stated in his cross-examination that he did not obtain signature of the witnesses on the label fixed on the seized timber. It was further stated that he obtained signature of the accused petitioner on the seizure list, but the seizure list does not disclose that copy of the s