JUDGMENT : V. Gopalaswamy, J. - This revision is preferred against the judgment of the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Puri, in Criminal Appeal No. 95/38/138 of 1985/1983/1981, confirming the order of conviction passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nayagarh, under Rule 16 of the Orissa Timber and other Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1967 and sentencing each of them thereunder to pay a fine of Rs. 150/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. 2. The gist of the prosecution case is that on 30.10.1978 during the night time the Forest Officials (P.Ws. 1 to 4) while on patrol duty, found the Petitioners carrying 3 pieces of sal logs in the tuck bearing registration No. ORU 4416, without having any valid permit for carrying the same and thereby rendered themselves liable under Rule 16 of the Timber Transit Rules. 3. The plea of the accused persons is one of denial. However, from the defence suggestions and the statement of the Petitioner Madan Mohan Acharya in his examination u/s 313, Code of Criminal Procedure it appears that the Petitioners plea is that it was at the instance of the Forest Officials they carried the sal logs in their truck and as they demanded the transport charges from the Forest Officials, they foisted this false case against them. No witness was examined in support of their plea. 4. The prosecution has examined in all seven witnesses to prove its case. P.Ws. 1 to 4 are the Forest Officials who claim to have fund the Petitioners illegally transporting the sal togs in a truck. P.Ws. 5 to 7 are the witnesses to the seizure of the sal logs in question. 5. Nothing was elicited in the cross-examination of P.Ws. 1 to 4 to discredit their testimony that on the relevant night they found the Petitioners illegally carrying the sal logs in the truck bearing registration No. ORU 4416, P.Ws. 5 to 7 who were examinee as witnesses to the seizure have merely stated that they have signed in the seizure list without knowing the contents thereof and thus they do not support the case of the prosecution. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners contended that on the other hand, P.W. 6, a witness to the seizure supported the defence plea in his cross-examination. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners contended that on the other hand, P.W. 6, a witness to the seizure supported the defence plea in his cross-examination. P.W. 6 stated in his cross-examination that at the time he was asked to sign in the seizure list at Khedapada he found that the accused persons were quarrelling with the Forest staff. From the said statement the defence wanted the Court to infer that the quarrel was about the transport charges and therefore, it was contended that the said statement of P.W. 6 supports the defence plea. In this context the learned Counsel for the Petitioners contended that as P.W. 6 was not declared hostile by the prosecution, his evidence regarding the quarrel between the accused persons and the Forest staff should have been accepted as true. In case a petition filed by the prosecution u/s 154 of the Evidence Act declaring a witness hostile is allowed by the Court, the prosecution is legally permitted to put any questions to him which might be put in cross-examination by the adverse party. Barring that, merely because a prosecution witness is not declared hostile, it does not necessarily follow that part of his evidence which goes in favour of the accused should be accepted as true. There is nothing in the Law of Evidence which lends support to the general proposition that a party is always bound by the evidence of a witness whom he produces. No part of the statement of such witness amounts to an admission on behalf of the party producing him. Nor is there any rule of law that a party is precluded from saying that a witness produced by him is not speaking the truth upon some particular point, unless he files a petition u/s 154 of the Evidence Act declaring him hostile. See Baburam v. Emperor AIR 1939 All 754. In the instant case, the very fact that though P W. 6 had signed in the seizure list, yet he denies the knowledge of the contents there of is a circumstance which discredits his testimony. That apart, the version of P.W. 6 that there was a quarrel at the relevant time between the Petitioners on the one hand and the Forest staff on the other is not corroborated even by P.Ws. That apart, the version of P.W. 6 that there was a quarrel at the relevant time between the Petitioners on the one hand and the Forest staff on the other is not corroborated even by P.Ws. 5 end 7 who are proved to be present at the time of occurrence and who are shown to be in no way hostile to the Petitioners. In that view of the matter, the nature of the evidence of P.W. 6 is such that both the Courts below were justified in placing no reliance on his evidence. So far as the defence plea is concerned on a perusal of the statements of the Petitioners Kirtan and Gobardhan in their examination u/s 313, Code of Criminal Procedure it is seen that even they do not pick up the courage to, stick to the defence which was suggested to the P.Ws. during the course of their cross-examination. On a perusal of the judgments of both the Courts below it is seen that it was only on a careful consideration of the evidence placed on record, they found that the Petitioners are guilty of the offence alleged against them. 6. In the result, find no merit in the revision petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed