KUNHIRAMAN Vs. SPECIAL RANGE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused in C. C. 78/57 on the file of the District Magistrate, Tellicherry is the revision petitioner. He was convicted under S.3[2] read with S.7[1] of the Madras Preservation of Private Forests Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 350/- and in default to undergo. Simple Imprisonment for 2 months. On appeal the conviction and sentence were upheld by the learned Sessions Judge of Tellicherry.

(2.) Iyankunnu Malavaram in the Cannanore District is an unsurveyed forest land having an extent of about 30,000 acres falling within the purview of the Madras Preservation of Private Forests Act. M. P. Moidu Haju, the first accused in the connected case C.C. 77/57, the lessee of the property, obtained the necessary permit from the Collector to cut and remove 250 trees from the property. The period of the permit expired on 30-12-55 The prosecution case is that in or about the months of April, May 1956, the accused cut 50 trees from the Parakkapara which is a portion of Iyankunnu Malavaram. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge. The learned Magistrate relied upon the evidence of Pws. 3 to 5, and Ext. P. 5 the confessional statement of the accused recorded by Pw.5, the special Forest Range Officer in the course of the investigation and convicted the accused. In appeal the learned Sessions Judge upheld the conviction basing it solely on Ext. P. 5, confessional statement.

(3.) The main point urged in revision is that Ext. P. 5 is inadmissible in evidence under S.25 of the Evidence Act, being a confession made to a police officer, and even if it is admissible, since the confession was retracted in the absence of corroborating evidence the conviction is bad.