Judgment Chandra Mohan Prasad, J. 1. This revision is against the order of conviction of the appellants by Shri RK. Sukla, Judicial Magistrate, 1 st Class, Rohtas at Sasaram vide judgment dated 17.12.1997 passed in Forest Case No. F21/84/Tr. No. 725/1987 whereby each of the appellants has been convicted under Sec. 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to be as the "Act") and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year. Against the judgment of the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, the appellants preferred Cr. Appeal No. 123 of 1997 which was heard by IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram and vide his judgment dated 6.9.1999 the appeal was dismissed and the order of conviction and sentence as passed against the petitioners were affirmed. After the confirmation of the conviction and the sentence passed by the Lower Appellate Court as above the petitioners preferred this revision before this court. 2. The prosecution case was that on 16.5.1984 Rambrikch Sah, Sarpanch gave a written information before the Banpal, Rehla that the petitioners alongwith accused Sheonandan Uraon and Haribansh Uraon had killed a tiger on 15.5.1984 at 8 P.M. in Rehla protected forest area and they were removing the hide of the killed tiger. On this information the Forest Officer constituted a raiding party on 23.5.1984 and a search was conducted and as a result of search of that day (23.5.1984) at about 7:30 P.M. the appellants alongwith co-accused Sheonandan Uraon and Krishna Uraon who died during trial and Haribansh Uraon (who absconded during trial) were found to have assembled at a place and the bones of the killed tiger was there and they were digging a ditch for burying the bones. The bones alongwith one spade were seized and seizure list was also prepared. The bones were proved as material exhibit during trial. That day (23.5.1984) at about 8 P.M. the house of the Sheonandan Uroan (who died during trial) was also searched and the hide of the killed tiger was recovered from his house. It was also the case of the prosecution that accused persons confessed that accused Sheonandan Uraon had killed the tiger with a gun and that other accused had assisted in the killing. 3. The hide of the killed tiger was produced during trial and it was marked as material exhibit-1. 4. As many as six witnesses were examined by the prosecution. 3. The hide of the killed tiger was produced during trial and it was marked as material exhibit-1. 4. As many as six witnesses were examined by the prosecution. They deposed in detail about recovery of the hide and bones of the killed tiger and apprehension of the appellant and other accused while they were digging a ditch for burying the bones of the killed tiger. On perusal of the evidence, I do not find any infirmity or discrepancy in the evidence of witnesses to discredit their testimony. The prosecution has proved the charge beyond the shadows of doubt. 5. During hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant argued that under Sec. 55 of the Act the cognizance of the offence can be taken on a complaint filed by an officer not below the rank of Divisional Forest Officer but in this case, the complaint has been filed by a Range Officer who is below the rank of Divisional Forest Officer. 6. The learned A.P.P. referring the complaint/prosecution report marked Ext. 2/4 pointed out that the forest ranger had forwarded his complaint to the Divisional Forest Officer who satisfied himself on the complaint after verifying the same and found it correct and thereafter he further forwarded the same to the Chief Judicial Magistrate for taking action against the accused vide his report dated 6.6.1984. Thus there does not remain any defect in taking cognizance of the offence by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the occurrence is of the year 1984 i.e. 22 years back. It is also submitted that the main accused i.e. Sheonandan Uraon who is said to have killed the tiger with a gun has died and the petitioners are said to have been arrested while they were digging ditch for burying the bones of the killed tiger. The learned counsel also submits that the petitioners are said to have confessed before the police but any confessional statement of the petitioner was not recorded nor proved during trial. It is also submitted that the petitioners have remained in custody for a period about eighty days during trial. The further submission of the learned counsel is that the sentence passed on the petitioners is excessive. 8. It is also submitted that the petitioners have remained in custody for a period about eighty days during trial. The further submission of the learned counsel is that the sentence passed on the petitioners is excessive. 8. It is also submitted that under Sec. 51 of the Act the minimum punishment for killing animal under schedule 1 or 2 is of six months but the minimum punishment has been enhanced to one year by the Act No. 44 of 1991 with effect from 2.10.1991. The occurrence is on 15.5.1984 so the minimum punishment of six months under the Act would be applicable in this case. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that a sentence of six months of R.I. to each of the petitioners will meet the ends of justice. Therefore, sustaining the conviction of each of the petitioners under Sec. 51 of the Act the sentence awarded to the petitioners is reduced from one year to six months of R.I. Accordingly, each of the petitioners will have to undergo a sentence of six months of rigours imprisonment under Sec. 51 of the Act. 9. Thus, with the modification in the sentence as aforesaid, this revision stands dismissed.