Judgment : ( 2 ) SINCE both the revision applications arise out of the common trial, being Trial no. 430/2003, the following common order is passed. ( 3 ) THE case against the petitioners is that on 5. 00 a. m. on 13-9-1998, P. W. 2, the forest guard, Banaudhi Sao, found the petitioners in a jeep bearing No. WBE 4166 coming towards daltangonj from Satbarwa and that on seeing the Patrolling Party, the jeep was turned and the persons inside the jeep tried to escape. According to the prosecution, the jeep was stopped and one person ran away from the jeep and Altaf Hussain, driver, who is the petitioner in Cr. Revision no. 1078/05, was caught and when thejeep was searched, the Patrolling Party found 8 pcs. of Teak Slipper and Altaf Hussain gave the name of the person who ran away from the place of occurrence as Guddu Shukla. 8 pcs. of Teak Slippers were seized and later, prosecution was launched The trial court found them. guilty as stated earlier. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner, Guddu Shukla @ Sant Gyan Shukla, in Cr. Revision No 1068/2005, submits that in absence of any material that Guddu shukla was one of the passengers and was travelling in the jeep on the date of occurrence, the courts below were not justified in convicting him under Section 42 of the Indian Forest Act only on the basis of statements given by Altaf Hussain, who is a coaccused and is the petitioner in Cr. Revision No. 1078/05. ( 5 ) ON the above contention, I have heard mr. S. N. Rajgona, APP, who submits that the statements of a co-accused given to a forest person is not readily admissible under the Evidence Act and therefore, it can be acted. ( 6 ) I have considered the above contention. There is no doubt that the statements given by a co-accused to a forest officer is admissible in evidence as the forest officer is not a Police Officer; therefore, Section 162, cr. P. C will not come into operation, but it is to be remembered that the statement of a co-accused, though admissible under Section 30 of the Evidence Act, can be taken into consideration only to lend assurance if there are other materials. P. C will not come into operation, but it is to be remembered that the statement of a co-accused, though admissible under Section 30 of the Evidence Act, can be taken into consideration only to lend assurance if there are other materials. Admittedly, there are no other materials except the statement of P W 2, forest guard, who, in his evidence, stated that Altaf Hussain gave the name of guddu Shukla as the person, who ran away from the jeep It is to be remembered at this stage that the Investigating Agency did not try to find out as to whom the jeep belonged. ( 7 ) IN the above circumstances, it is difficult to a (cept the case as against the petitioner, Guddu Shukla @ Sant Gyan Shukla, since, except the statement made by Altaf hussain, there is no other material connecting him with the crime and as observed earlier, though the said statement of Altaf hussain may fall within the ambit of Section 30 of the Evidence Act, it cannot be linked unless it is supported by other materials which are found lacking in this case. ( 8 ) I, therefore, find it difficult to accept the prosecution version to uphold the conviction oi the petitioner, Guddu Shukla @ sant Gyan Shukla, in Cr. Revision No. 1068/ 05 under Section 42 of the Indian Forest act. In view of the above discussion, the petitioner, Guddu Shukla @ Sant Gyan shukla, is acquitted. Cr. Revision No. 1068/05 is allowed by betting aside the conviction and sentence imposed upon the petitioner, guddu Shukla @ Sant Gyan Shukla. He is directed to be released from the jail custody forthwith, if not wanted in other case (s ). ( 9 ) AS regards the petitioner, Altaf hussain in Cr. Revision No. 1078/2005, is concerned, it is to be stated that it was he, who was driving the jeep and was caught red handed by P. W. 2 and other persons of the Patrolling Party and he could not give explanation for the produce which were kept inside the jeep and therefore, he was rightly convicted and sentenced under Section 42 of the said Act. I find no merit in Cr. I find no merit in Cr. Revision No 1078/05 filed by the petitioner, Altaf hussain ( 10 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner, Altaf Hussain, submits that since he was only the driver, he may be dealt leniently ( 11 ) I have heard Mr S. N. Rajgona, APP, appearing for the State and have given my anxious consideration to the said plea. ( 12 ) TAKING into consideration, the relevant facts and cn cumstances of the case, I feel that the interest of justice will be met, if the imposition of sentence is reduced to a fine of Rs 500/- under Section 42 of the indian Forest Act. The said fine will be paid by the petitioner, Altaf Hussain, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and in default of payment of fine, he will undergo R I for a period of one month. He is directed to be released from the jail custody, if not wanted in other case (s ). ( 13 ) WITH the above modification in sentence, Cr. Revision No. 1078/2005 filed by the petitioner, Altaf Hussain, is dismissed. Order accordingly. --- *** --- .