A. HARIPRASAD, J.

1. Revision petition filed by the first and second accused in C.C. No. 904 of 1998 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court - II (Forest Offences), Manjeri. The revision petitioners and the third accused were convicted by the trial court and they challenged the conviction, imposed on them under Sections 27(1)(e)(iii) and 27(1)(e)(iv) of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961 (in short the Act), before the learned Sessions Judge, Manjeri in Criminal Appeal No. 278 of 2001. Learned Sessions Judge, after considering the entire evidence, allowed the appeal in part. The conviction and sentence imposed on the third accused was set aside. The conviction and sentence in respect of the revision petitioners were confirmed.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor.

3. Learned counsel contended that the petitioners have been framed up in this case. It is further contended that the Forest Officers took nearly three years to complete the investigation, indicating that actually they were groping in darkness. Yet another contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that there is no material to show the arrest and remand of the accused.

4. The question to be considered in a criminal revision is regarding the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order passed by the lower court. I have carefully gone through the evidence in the case and the judgments of the courts below. Ext.P1 is the seizure mahazar. Prosecution case, in short, is that on 24-11-1995 morning, they got a reliable information that two persons were engaged in removing timber from Kariyam muriyam reserve in the limits of Pothukal Forest Station. On the basis of that information, PW's 1 and 3 went for inspection in the reserve forest. At that time, the petitioners were found carrying pieces of teak wood. Both PW's 1 and 3 deposed that the petitioners were seen within the forest, with logs carried on their head. Both PW's 1 and 3 restrained them and inspected the logs. When questioned, they confessed that trees standing in the reserve forest were cut and removed and they showed the stumps of the trees. Ext.P1 seizure mahazar was prepared by PW3 from the place of detection.

5. PW2 testified that the accused were produced before the Forest Ranger and as per his direction, the accused were produced before the learned Magistrate on the same day at 4.50 p.m. It is seen from the endorsement made by the learned Magistrate on the remand report that the accused were remanded to Sub Jail, Manjeri. It is true that the records do not show when the accused persons were released on bail. But the fact remains that the accused were arrested and produced before the court and they were in remand for some time. Hence the contention raised by the petitioners that there is no evidence regarding their arrest cannot be sustained.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is undue delay in completing the investigation and submitting the charge. The offence was detected on 24-11-1995. The report was filed only on 19-03-1998. But the records in the case show that Ext.P1 mahazar, Ext.P2 Form A1 report etc. were produced immediately after the detection. I do not find any reason to hold that the petitioners suffered any prejudice on account of the delay in filing charge.

7. Courts below considered the oral evidence correctly and found that the accused were seen inside a reserve forest and that they cut and removed teak tees therefrom. Notwithstanding that, there is a legal issue raised by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners which deserves consideration. According to him, the courts below went wrong in convicting the petitioners both under sub Clauses (iii) and (iv) of Section 27(1)(e) of the Act ignoring the facts and circumstances alleged by the prosecution and revealed in evidence in this case. Section 27(1)(e)(iii) and (iv) of the Act is quoted hereun