The facts and the issues involved in the above cases are similar and as such they are heard and being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

2. As on facts it may be stated briefly that the accused petitioners are drivers and handymen of two different trucks. Their trucks were intercepted by some forest officials on suspicion of carrying timbers illegally. In fact, on being checked, the forest officials found some extra pieces of timbers/logs which were not included in the challans and T.Ps. The trucks were unloaded, inventories were prep#31;ared and excess timbers /logs were seized. The prosecution reports were prepared by the Forest Department on 12.12.2007 and the same were submitted before the court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Sankardev Nagar, Hojai under Sections 40/41/49/60(i) of the Assam Forest Regulation, 1891. Based on them, the C.R. Case Nos. 4/08 and 5/08 were registered against the accused petitioners. On their appearance before the court, charge was framed u/s 41 of the Assam Forest Regulation, 1891 (hereinafter referred to Regulation only in short). The charge being read over and explained, the accused petitioners pleaded not guilty and claimed to stand trial. In both the cases the prosecution examined three witnesses, while defence examined no witness. At the closure of the evidence the accused petitioners were examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. but they refused to produce any witness in their defence. In C.R.Case No.4/08 the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Sankardev Nagar, Hojai convicted the accused petitioners u/s 41 of the Regulation and sentenced them with simple imprisonment for one year. Against the said conviction and sentence an appeal was filed, which was registered as Criminal Appeal No. 14(N)/09 and the same was dismissed vide judgment dated 11.11.2011 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nagaon, Assam. The present Criminal Revision Petition No.458 of 2011 is directed against the aforesaid judgment dated 11.11.2011 rendered by the lower appellate court. Similarly the accused petitioners in C.R. Case No. 5/08 were also convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year vide judgment dated 5.1.2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Sankardev Nagar, Hojai, against which, criminal appeal No.2(N)/2009 was preferred. The said appeal was dismissed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nagaon vide judgment dated 11.11.2011, which is now challenged by the accused/petitioners in the Criminal Revision Petition No.459/2011.

3. I have heard Mr. A K Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. D. Das, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam, appearing for the Respondent/State.

4. A number of grounds have been taken in challenging the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial court as well as the appellate courts below. The main ground of challenge is that the learned courts below adopted summons procedure in the instant cases instead of adopting warrant procedure for a case arising out of a complaint and due to adoption of wrong procedure the entire criminal proceeding has been vitiated and the impugned conviction and sentence have been rendered void ab initio making it liable to be set aside and quashed.

5. Before examining the above question raised by the petitioners, it may be noted that facts of the cases are not disputed If it is found that the learned courts below adopted wrong procedure, it may not be necessary to deal with other grounds taken in these petitions.

6. The LCR in respect of C.R. case No.04/ 08 has been made available at the time of hearing. I have gone through the same. The accused petitioners Shri Bhadra Singh and Md. Mushid Ali were arrested and produced before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Sankardev Nagar, Hojai on 13.12.2007. After hearing both sides, charge was framed against the accused petiti#31;oners under Section 41 of the Regulation vide order dated 2.8.08. The Court directed to is