ORDER :

Prayer : Criminal Revision filed under Section 397 and 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, praying to call for the records in Criminal Appeal No.4 of 2015 on the file of the learned Court of Sessions Judge of Magaliar Neethimandram, (FTMC), Udhagamandalam at Nilgiris and set aside the order dated 10.11.2020 confirming the conviction and the sentence passed by the Judicial Magistrate Court, Coonoor in C.C.No.86 of 2000 by a Judgment dated 12.12.2014 by allowing this revision.

This Criminal Revision case has been filed to set aside the Judgment dated 10.11.2020 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Udhagamandalam, The Nilgiris in Criminal Appeal No.4 of 2015 confirming the conviction and sentenced passed by the Judicial Magistrate Court, Coonoor by Judgment dated 12.12.2014 in C.C.No.86 of 2000.

2. The respondent herein filed a case in O.R.No.2 of 2000 for the offences under Section 39(1)(a), (1)(b), 3(a), Section 49 and 51 of Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 and Sections 21(d) and 21(f) of Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882 before learned Judicial Magistrate, Coonoor. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Coonoor taken the case on the file in CC.No.86 of 2000 and framed charges against the petitioner. After trial, the trial Court found guilt of the petitioner for the offences under sections 39(3)(a) and 49 punishable under Section 51 of Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 and convicted and sentenced to undergo three years of simple imprisonment and pay fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo six months simple imprisonment and trial Court found not guilt of the petitioner for the offences under Sections 21(d) and 21(f) of Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882 and acquitted under Section 248(2) of Cr.P.C.

3. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioners herein filed an appeal in Crl.A.Nos.4 of 2015 before the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandram, (Fast Track Mahila Court), Udhagamandalam at Nilgiris against the Judgment passed on 12.12.2014 in C.C.No.86 of 2000. After hearing the appeal, the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal and confirmed the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Magistrate.

4. Challenging the same, the present revision has been filed before this Court.

5. The case of the prosecution is that, on 17.07.2000 at about 5.30 am, when the Q branch Inspector along with his team were on patrol duty, the petitioner was found in possession of 2 ivories about 24 cms length and 10 cm circumference and each weighing 0.5 kg with a value of Rs.3,000/-. When they conducted an enquiry, he made an confession statement and based on that, a case was registered and ivories were recovered. After investigation, charge sheet was laid for the offences under Section 39(1)(a), (1)(b), 3(a), Section 49 and 51 of Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 and Sections 21(d) and 21(f) of Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882. In order to substantiate the charges, on the side of the prosecution totally 10 witnesses were examined and 3 documents were marked. Despite, one material object was exhibited. Based on the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Judicial Magistrate convicted the petitioner for the above said charges. When the petitioner filed an appeal before the Sessions Court, the same was dismissed and therefore, this Revision.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that, as per the seizure mahazar the place of recovery is the short cut footpath from Pudhukadu to Mettupalayam main Road. As per Form 'A', the respondent before the trial Court and the covering letter sent along with Form 'A' the alleged recovery was from the residence of the accused. PW3 did not support the prosecution case. PW1 claims that he had arrested the accused/petitioner in the presence of independent witness PW3. Seizure Mahazar was also allegedly prepared in the presence of the PW3. The trial Court has acquitted the accused at his place of residence is Pudhukadu, Burliar which is in the forest area. PW1 in his