E C RICHARD Vs. FOREST RANGE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is preferred by the first accused In C. C. No. 2023 of 1956, on the file of the Stationary Sub-Magistrate, Mettupalayam. The present petitioner and five others were put up for trial before the Magistrate for an offence under Section 21 (h) of the Madras Forest Act, 1882, read with Rules 7 (1), (2) and (8) of the Game Licence Rules, for having shot a female and an immature male deer without horns within the reserve forest of Mettupalayam range. All the accused were convicted of the offence with which they stood charged and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50/- each by the trial Court. In appeal the learned District Magistrate acquitted accused 2 to 6 but confirmed the conviction and sentence of the first accused as he is stated to have shot a female deer and one male deer without horns contrary to the Gaming Rules in the Nilgiris area.

(2.) THE main evidence against the petitioner consists in the statement made by him to P. W. 1, Forest Range Officer who with his party of guards and foresters found the petitioner and others coining in a lorry with the said female and male deer. This statement is Ex. P. 1, It is a confession of his shooting the deer which he should not have shot.

(3.) THE only question that is argued before me is that this statement is inadmissible in evidence. It is contended that the Forest Range Officers have powers similar to those of a police officer to arrest and detain the offenders, that for all practical purposes they have the same powers of a "police officer" and that, therefore, they must be deemed to be "police officers" within the meaning of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act and hence any statement made by the petitioner before the Forest Range Officer must be ruled out as inadmissible. The powers of a Forest Range Officer are contained in Sections 41 51, and 53 of the Forest Act.