Pandrang Row, J.

1. The petitioner and several others were accused of being in possession of billets of illicit sandalwood suspected to have been removed from a certain reserve forest and they were charged with an offence punishable under Section 21(f) of the Madras Forest Act.

2. Apparently in the course of the enquiry there was an attempt made to convert the charge into one of theft or dishonest detention of stolen property. In the course of the enquiry the first accused moved the Court for the production of certain statements recorded by the Forest Range Officer in the course of his investigation in the present case from accused 2 and 3 and others. Summons for the production of these records appears to have been issued and they appear to have been actually produced in Court. Privilege was claimed under Sections 123 and 124 of the Indian Evidence Act. The Magistrate thought that such privilege could not be claimed and even addressed the District Forest Officer on the subject expressing that opinion. (Vide the Sub-Magistrates letter dated 27th April, 1936, to the District Forest Officer.

3. The forest Officer appears to have contended that the statements recorded at the time of