ORDER :

Crl.R.P.No.3327/2005 is by accused Nos.1, 4 and 5. Crl.R.P.No.43/2006 is by accused No.3. During the pendency of the revision, accused No.5 passed away. Nobody turned up to implead themselves and to substitute in the place of deceased.

2. Accused No.1, 3, 4 and 5 were found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 51 of the Wild Life Protection Act (for short, 'the Act') for the violation of prohibition under Section 9 of the Act. The conviction is mainly based on a confession statement alleged to have given by the accused persons before a Forest Range Officer during the course of investigation. It is under challenge mainly on the reason that the Forest Range Officer is not an authorized officer empowered to record statement under Section 50(8) of the Act, hence, it is submitted that the confession statement is vitiated and cannot be relied upon.

3. But, the prosecution heavily relied on the legal position settled by the Apex Court in Motilal v. Central Bureau of investigation and another [(2002) 4 SCC 713].

4. To resolve the issue, it is necessary to have an understanding with respect to the authority which has been given under sub-section (8) of Section 50 of the Act al