EMERICO DSOUZA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application raises an important question as to whether the statements recorded by the Range Forest Officer of the accused, during the investigation of a forest offence under the Indian Forests Act, 1927, are hit by section 25 or 30 of the Evidence Act. The petitioner is involved in an offence under section 52 of the Indian Forest Act read with Rule 64 of the G. D. D. Forest Rules, 1964 for possessing illegally forest timber. This transaction involved as many as nine persons and the petitioner is designated as accused No. 1 and rest of them are accused Nos. 2 to 9.

(2.) TO the facts, reference may be made later. The Range Forest Officer, soon after seizure of the illegally cut wood, recorded the statements of those accused and it was disclosed from those statements that all the accused were involved in cutting, removing and possessing the illegally cut wood. The learned Magistrate, in Criminal Case No. 22/n/1992, on an elaborate consideration, found that the present petitioner and accused Nos. 8 and 9 in the original complaint had to be discharged because except their statements and the statements of other accused, there was no other independent evidence to involve them in the forest offence. The learned Magistrate further observed that the statements of other accused, implicating the present petitioner, were not admissible as they were hit under section 30 of the Evidence Act. It was further observed that those statements are in the nature of confession and the same are hit under section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. Accordingly, the learned Magistrate was pleased to discharge the present petitioner by his order dated 15th September, 1992.

(3.) THE State, having been aggrieved by this discharge of the petitioner, preferred Criminal Revision No. 37 of 1992 and Criminal Appeal No. 2 of 1992 under section 59 (A) of the Indian Forest Act. The learned Sessions Judge, Panaji, in the above proceedings found that the approach of the learned Magistrate was erroneous; that it was incorrect in law to say that the statements of the accused were not admissible because the Range Forest Officer is not a police officer and the statements were, therefore, statements not amounting to confession and that the statements could be read against all the accused inter-se. He was, therefore, pleased to quash that order of discharge and was pleased to direct the Magistrate to proceed with the matter in the light of the observations in his order dated 9th June, 1993.