P. K. MISRA, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against the judgment dated 25-6-1998 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khurda, in Criminal Appeal No. 108 of 1997. By the said order the learned Additional Sessions Judge confirmed the order of conviction of the present petitioners under Rule 21 of the Orissa Timber and Other Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1980 (for short, "the Rules"), but reduced the sentence. Originally, each of the petitioners was sentencedto undergo R. I. for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 800. 00, in default to undergo S. 1, for two months. By the impugned appellate order, they have been directed to undergo R. I. for three months and to pay fine of Rs. 500. 00, in default to undergo R. I. for one month. ( 2 ) PROSECUTION case is that on 23-1-1994, when the mobile staff of Forest Department of Khurda were performing patrol duty near Khurda by-pass, they detected a truck coming from Balugaon side. On suspicion, they searched the same and found 158 pieces of teak sizes and planks inside the truck, which were being carried without any authority to transport the same. The driver of the vehicle then pointed out to the two accused persons (present petitioners), who were escorting the truck on a motor cycle without any registration number, as the owners of the said forest materials. The forest produce in question and the vehicle were seized and the statements of the driver as well as the present petitioners were recorded by the Forest officials and offence report was submitted to the Range Officer, who in turn, enquired into the matter and after completion of enquiry submitted prosecution report. ( 3 ) THE plea of the accused-petitioners was a complete denial one. ( 4 ) TO prove the case, prosecution examined six witnesses, all of whom are forest officials. The trial Court, after considering the evidence on record, found the accused-petitioners guilty under Rule 21 of the Rules and convicted them thereunder. In appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khurda, has maintained the said conviction. ( 5 ) BEFORE this Court, learned counsel for the petitioners is unable to point out any error of law in the orders of the lower forums so as to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Revisional Court cannot evaluate the evidence. In appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khurda, has maintained the said conviction. ( 5 ) BEFORE this Court, learned counsel for the petitioners is unable to point out any error of law in the orders of the lower forums so as to invoke the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. Revisional Court cannot evaluate the evidence. Even if it does so and comes to a different conclusion, unless the conclusion arrived at by the lower forums is illegal or perverse, it cannot substitute its conclusion with that of the lower forums. ( 6 ) IT is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the witnesses examined by the prosecution are all official witnesses. Without any independent corroboration to the evidence of such witnesses, the same should not have been accepted to pass an order of conviction. It is also submitted that the conviction based on the confessional statement of the driver is not tenable in law. Lastly, it is submitted that prosecution report has been submitted by the Forest Guard who is not competent to do so and, therefore, the proceeding was bed in law. ( 7 ) THE first ground urged that no conviction can be based on the evidence of official witnesses without corroboration from independent witnesses is not tenable in law. The evidence of these official witnesses has been found to be reliable and trustworthy. In this connection, learned counsel for the opposite party has drawn my attention to the decision of this Court in Shyam Sunder Rout v. State of Orissa, (1991) 71 Cut LT 128 : (1991 Cri LJ 1595) wherein it has been held (para-6, at p. 132) (of Cur LT) : (at p. 1597 of Cri LJ) :-"it is well settled in law that where seizure witnesses turn hostile, the evidence on the departmental witnesses can be relied upon to prove the fact of seizure unless there is intrinsically anything which appears to make their evidence non-trustworthy". ( 8 ) AS regards the confessional statement of the driver, the same can be made the basis of conviction as in the said statement, he has not only implicated the petitioners but also implicated himself. Therefore, this submission has no force. ( 8 ) AS regards the confessional statement of the driver, the same can be made the basis of conviction as in the said statement, he has not only implicated the petitioners but also implicated himself. Therefore, this submission has no force. On this point also, learned counsel for the opposite party brought to my notice the decision of this Court in Rema Nayak v. State, AIR 1965 Orissa 31 : (1965 (1) Cri LJ 315), wherein it has been held (para-8, p. 32) (of AIR) : (at p. 316 of Cri. LJ) :-"there is no dispute about the position that the confession of one of the accused persons may be taken into consideration against the other accused persons if it fulfils the condition laid down in Section 30 of the Evidence Act, one of the conditions being that the confession must substantially implicate the maker himself to the same extent as the other accused persons against whom it is sought to be taken into consideration. The position, however, would be different while making the alleged confession, an attempt is made by the maker of it to throw the blame on the other accused persons, making himself a mere unwilling spectator. It is pertinent to note that the forest officials, though invested with certain powersof police officers, and not police officers. As such, the statement made before them is not hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act. Reference may be made to E. C. Richard v. Forest Range Officer, Mettupalayam, AIR 1958 Madras 31 : (1958 Cri LJ 52 ). Therefore, the point urged by the petitioners has to be rejected. ( 9 ) WITH regard to the third contention, i. e. submission of prosecution report by the Forest Guard , a perusal of the records shows that, in fact, the prosecution report was submitted by the Range Officer on the basis of the offence report submitted by the Forest Guard. Therefore, the point urged is not factually correct and has to be rejected. ( 10 ) IN view of the foregoing discussions, the revision fails and is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed.