Judgment :- This appeal is filed by the accused/appellant challenging the order of conviction passed against him by the Sessions Judge and Fast Track Court-I, Shimoga, in S.C.285/2006 convicting the appellant of the offence under Sec.87 of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963, for short the Act and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. 2. Heard Sri Dinesh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Smt. A.R. Sharadamba, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for State and perused the records. 3. It is the case of the prosecution that on 12.3.2003 at about 11 p.m., the appellant was found transporting MO-1 sandal wood billets without any permit near forest check post, Sakerebylu in Shimoga district. When the forest officials found and checked him, he was not in a position to give any reply or reasonable explanation for his possession of sandal wood. Therefore, he was charged for the said offence. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined in all four witnesses and got marked Ex.P-1 to P-4 and MOs 1 to 3. 5. PW-1 Satish A.V. is Range Forest Officer of Pandavapura range. It is in his evidence that on 12.3.2003 at about 11 pm., he was on duty in Gajanur forest check post. At about 11.30 p.m., one Govt. bus was coming from Thirthahalli side towards Bangalore and the said bus was stopped for checking. It was found that in the last seat of the bus, one person was sitting with a red colour bag near his leg. PW-1 further says that he checked the said bag and questioned as to whom the said bag belongs. The appellant Raghavendrachari states that the bag belongs to him. On suspicion, the said bag was opened and it was found that the said bag contained sandal wood billets having no Government seal on them. They were seized under a mahazer and the appellant was arrested. The appellant along with sandal wood were brought to the forest office and PW-1 lodged a complaint which is marked as FIR. Thereafter all the 22 sandal wood billets were counted and department seal were put on them. PW-1 has further stated that the bus belongs to the Government having registration No.KA-14-F-01. In this regard, a mahazar was also drawn which is at EX.P.2. 6. Thereafter all the 22 sandal wood billets were counted and department seal were put on them. PW-1 has further stated that the bus belongs to the Government having registration No.KA-14-F-01. In this regard, a mahazar was also drawn which is at EX.P.2. 6. PW-2 B.G. Jagadish is Asst. Conservator of Forest, Shimoga. It is in his evidence that he has examined the material seized in this case and he has issued a certificate stating that the material seized is sandal wood billets. The said certificate is marked at Ex.P-4. 7. PW-3 Channappa is the Investigating Officer who has filed charge sheet against the appellant. PW-4 is also another witness who speaks about Ex.P-2. He states about he having reached the place where the appellant was detained and property was kept. He has signed Ex.P-2. In the cross examination, he says that he is not in a position to identify the appellant. 8. From the above evidence, it is clear that the prosecution has not examined any inmates of the bus nor the conductor or driver of the bus. Further, it is the case of the prosecution that the incident has taken place at the check post, but no persons other than the officials have been examined in this case. No independent witness is forthcoming to support the case of the prosecution. 9. Sec.62-C of the Act provides for issuance of certificate by the Range Forest Officer who has undergone training in the examination of forest produce and who is so authorized by the State Government. 10. Sec.62-C reads thus: “CERTIFICATE OF FOREST OFFICER TO BE AN EVIDENCE:-Any document purporting to be a certificate under the hand of a Forest Officer not below the rank of a Range Forest Officer who has undergone training in the examination of forest produce and who is so authorized by the State Government in this behalf in respect of forest produce, submitted to him for examination and report, may be used as evidence of the facts stated in such certificate in any proceedings under this Act, but the court may, if it thinks fit, and shall on the application of the prosecution or the accused person summon and examine any such Forest Officer as to the subject mater of his certificate.” 11. In the instant case, PW-2 has issued the certificate Ex.P-4. In the instant case, PW-2 has issued the certificate Ex.P-4. There is no evidence to the effect that PW-2 has undergone training as prescribed in Sec.62-C of the Act or that he was so authorized by the Govt. to issue such certificate. Hence, no reliance can be placed on Ex.P-4 to hold that material seized is sandal wood. Therefore, on this ground alone, the appellant is entitled to an order of acquittal. 12. From the material placed, it is not clear as to whom the bag alleged to have been found in the bus, belongs. Therefore, the prosecution has miserably failed to connect the guilt with the appellant. Under these circumstances, I deem it proper to giver the benefit of doubt to the appellant. Hence, I pass the following order- The appeal is allowed. The appellant is acquitted of the charge leveled against him and bail bonds, if any, executed by him is cancelled. The fine amount, if any, deposited shall be returned to the appellant.