B. Rajendran, J.

1. The petitioner is arrayed as first accused in C.C. No. 117 of 1998 on the file of the learned Special Judicial Magistrate, Thirupathur, Vellore District. The petitioner was tried for the offence punishable under Section 21(d), (e), (f) and 36(A) and (E) of Tamil Nadu Forest Act (Act V of 1982) and after trial, he was convicted him for the offences punishable under Section 36(A)and (E) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs.7,500/-, failing which to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. The petitioner was acquitted of the offence under Section 21(d)(e) and (f) of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act. Such conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner was confirmed by the Appellate Court in the appeal filed by him. As against the aforesaid decisions of the Court below, the present Criminal Revision Case is filed.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 09.01.1998 on the basis of a tip off received by PW2, he proceeded to Porayankulam Forest area along with his team in the official jeep bearing Registration No. TNM 8661 at about 4.00 pm. During the course of vigil, they have spotted three persons behind a bush and when they were chased, two persons have escaped from the scene of occurrence and the petitioner/A-1 alone was caught. On examination of the gunny bags behind a bush, it came to light that the gunny bags contains sandalwood pieces weighing 783 kilograms and it's value was estimated to be around Rs.3,52,350/-. The petitioner gave a voluntary confession relating to the occurrence and based on such confession, the case in S.T.O.R. No. 2 of 1998 came to be filed against three persons, including the petitioner/A-1. On the same day, the officials of the respondent have prepared form 'H' as well as form 95' and the seized sandalwood were produced before the authorised officer on the same day. The authorised officer also signed the forms as an acknowledgment. The seized sandalwood logs were also assigned with a number for identity. The sandalwood goods seized were also produced before the trial Court. On the same day, the petitioner was remanded to judicial custody.

3. Assailing the judgment of the courts below, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the prosecution failed to prove that the occurrence took place in the reserved forest area. In other words, according to the counsel for the petitioner, the occurrence took place in an area which was not notified as a reserved forest and therefore, the respondent has no jurisdiction to either register a case or to proceed further in the case. The Courts below also failed to take note of this important aspect which led to miscarriage of justice. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further contend that the seized wooden logs, alleged to be sandalwood, has not been produced before the trial court soon after it's seizure. Mere production of form 'H' or form 95' will not be an evidence to show that the respondent has only seized sandalwood from the possession of the petitioner. The seized wooden logs, alleged to be sandalwood, have not been sent to chemical analysis. Even though the officials of the respondent have concluded that the seized wooden logs are sandalwood by it's smell, such a conclusion was not supported by any material documents. It is further contended that even though it was alleged by the prosecution that the seized wooden logs have been produced before the Authorised Officer soon after it's seizure, the Authorised Officer himself was not examined on the side of the prosecution, which is fatal to the case projected by the prosecution.

4. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of this Court in the case of (Seerangan Vs Forest Range Officer, Salem) 2005 Criminal Law Journal 987 and also the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court rendered in (Ashok @ Dangra Jaiswal Vs State of Madhya Pradesh) (2011) 5 Supr