Smt. Anna Chandy, J.- The accused in C. C. No. 78 of 1957 on the file of the District Magistrate, Tellicherry, is the revision petitioner. He was convicted under section 3(2) read with section 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. 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. No. 77 of 1957, 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 30th December, 1955. 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 P.Ws. 3 to 5, and Exhibit P-5 the confessional statement of the accused recorded by P.W. 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 Exhibit P-5, confessional statement. The main point urged in revision is that Exhibit P-5 is inadmissible in evidence under section 25 of the Evidence Act, being a confession made to a police officer, and even if it is admissible, since the confession was retracted in the absence of corroborating evidence the conviction is bad. It may be observed in this connection that though the accused has not stated in so many words that he has not made the statement (Exhibit P-5), he has definitely stated that he is not aware of the contents of it. It may be observed in this connection that though the accused has not stated in so many words that he has not made the statement (Exhibit P-5), he has definitely stated that he is not aware of the contents of it. In this case where the contents of the statement were not brought out when the statement was proved by P.W. 5 who recorded it and where they were not also brought to the accused’s attention when he was questioned under section 342, Criminal Procedure Code, his plea of not guilty, taken along with his denial of all knowledge of the contents of the statement practically amounts to a retraction. The view taken by the learned Magistrate that the statement made to Forest Officers are not hit by section 25 of the Evidence Act appears to be correct. In the absence of a specific provision in the Madras Forest Act conferring on the Forest Officer all the powers of the officer in charge of the police station, he cannot be called a police officer. The question came up for consideration in the case reported in E.C. Richard v. Forest Range Officer, Mettupalayam1. His Lordship Justice Somasundaram after a detailed consideration of the prior rulings on the subject, came to the same conclusion. However, that question does not assume much importance in this case, where the confession is retracted, and there is a total absence of acceptable evidence to corroborate the confession. The learned Government Pleader referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Subramania Goundan v. The State of Madras2 in support of the position that, in the case of a person confessing who has resiled from his statement, general corroboration alone is sufficient, and claims that in this case there is ample evidence to corroborate that there was recent cutting of the trees. In the above case their Lordships were comparing the standards of corroboration noted in the case of a retracted confession and the evidence of an accomplice, and it was in that connection that it was observed that “In the case of the person confessing who has resiled from his statement, general corroboration is sufficient while an accomplice’s evidence should be corroborated in material particulars”. It does not follow from that, that the “general corroboration” that was in contemplation was corroboration of the type that is available in this case. It does not follow from that, that the “general corroboration” that was in contemplation was corroboration of the type that is available in this case. It may also be noted that in assuming the evidentiary value of the statement, it has to be borne in mind that it was recorded by an officer in the course of the investigation of the case, with none of the safeguards attendant on the recording of the judicial confessions, and as such the Court should all the more insist on corroboration. P.W. 3 is the forester of Nannathara attached to Kuthuparamba division. He gave evidence that as per the directions of the Ranger he visited the area on 30th August, 1956 and took the list of the stumps of the trees and stumps looked about 4 months old. Exhibit P. 4 is the list prepared by him and that is, dated 18th September, 1956 and not 30th August, 1956. There is also no indication in it about the age ofthe stumps. In Exhibit P. 4 the witness admits in cross-examination that his memory is weak, and he does not remember how many days he went to the Malavaram, and it is not safe to count on his memory when he estimates the age of the stumps at that distance of time. P.W. 4 is the Village Menon who went tothe place on 18th October, 1956. He swears that he noted about 100 stumps of recently cut trees and they were cut 3 or 4 months prior to his visit. In the absence of any record to evidence the fact, his assessment about the age of the stumps is not of any consequence. P.W. 5 is the Sub-Forest Range Officer who investigated the case and recorded Exhibit P. 5 confessional statement from the accused. In Exhibit P. 7, report, he states that he noted 15 stumps of trees in the Vanyampara area and they looked less than 3 months old. But he did not swear to that effect, and it is only in cross-examination when he was asked whether he noted the age of the stumps, that he gave the vague answer, that had he seen, he would have noted it. Neither the police officers nor the forest officers who investigated the case prepared a mahazar duly attested, regarding the age of the stumps nor did they attempt to prove that fact by independent evidence. Neither the police officers nor the forest officers who investigated the case prepared a mahazar duly attested, regarding the age of the stumps nor did they attempt to prove that fact by independent evidence. In this case, where the crucial point for determination is whether the trees were cut after the expiry of the period of the permit on 31st December, 1955, in the absence of any direct evidence of the cutting it was the bounden duty of the prosecution to prove at least the approximate time when the trees were actually cut. It is also not possible to find that persons who inspected the locality by the middle of August, about 3 months after the alleged cutting, could have made any correct assessment of the time when the trees were actually cut, especially when any available signs would have been removed by the stumps being exposed to the rain and sun. In the total absence of acceptable evidence that the trees were cut subsequent to 31st December, 1955, much less that the accused had anything to do with it, the conviction of the accused based on the retracted confession is unsustainable and has to be quashed. The Revision Petition is therefore allowed and the conviction and sentence are reversed. The sale proceeds of the timber will be paid to the person who establishes his right to it in appropriate proceedings. M.C.M. ----- Petition allowed.