Judgment C.R. Kumaraswamy, J. 1. This criminal appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 by the Advocate for the appellants praying to set aside the conviction and sentence dated 9-1-2009 passed by the Sessions Judge, Udupi, in S.C. No. 78/06-convicting the appellants/accused for the offence punishable under Sections 86 and 87 of Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years and pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- each and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 86 of the Karnataka Forest Act and further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- each and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months for the offence punishable under Section 87 of the Karnataka Forest Act. The sentence of imprisonment shall run concurrently and fine shall run consecutively. That on 6-7-2004 at about 6.30 p.m., the Range Forest Officer received a credible information that sandalwoods were stolen and were illegally transporting from Reserve Forest, Shivapura Village. The complainant is one K. Jagannath. He is the Range Forest Officer, Hebri Range. P. Sridhar, Range Forest Officer, Pedur Unit along with his officers and staff went in a Jeep bearing No. KA-20 G-13 till Shivapura. They alighted from the Jeep and they went by walk towards Shivapura Block Reserve Forest. They went inside the Forest Area Guppe Nos. 210 and 213. When they were walking, they found a person carrying a tide bag and another person carrying a plastic bag. They got suspicion and the staff encircled them. Then those two persons kept the bag on the floor and attempted to run. Accused 1 is Jayaram Shetty. The Range Forest Officer caught hold of him. The second accused attempted to escape. He fell into the bush when he tried to jump. Consequently, he sustained injuries. Staff of the squad caught hold of him. Inside the plastic bag, there were about 89 sandalwood billets weighing about 17.600 kgs. The bag which was possessed by the second accused contained saw, sickle. They have trespassed into Shivapura Reserve Forest. They have cut the sandalwood, made pieces and they were transporting the same. Consequently, he sustained injuries. Staff of the squad caught hold of him. Inside the plastic bag, there were about 89 sandalwood billets weighing about 17.600 kgs. The bag which was possessed by the second accused contained saw, sickle. They have trespassed into Shivapura Reserve Forest. They have cut the sandalwood, made pieces and they were transporting the same. Therefore, it is alleged that they have committed the offence under Sections 24(c)(ii), 24(e), 24(f), 84,86 and 87 of the Karnataka Forest Act and contravened Rules 154, 155 and 165 of the Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969. At the place of incident, there were about 60 kgs. of sandalwood billets and one iron pickaxe. The squad went to the spot on 13-7-2004. They have inspected the place of occurrence and done the spot mahazar. They have removed stumps. 2. The prosecution has examined in all three witnesses-P. Ws. 1 to 3. Exs. P. 1 to P. 14 were marked. Ex. P. 1-Mahazar, Ex. P. 1(a)-Signature of P.W. 1, Ex. P. 2-F.I.R., Ex. P. 3-Form 2, Ex. P. 3(a)-Signature of P.W. 1, Ex. P. 4-Mahazar, Ex. P. 4(a)-Signature of P.W. 1, Ex. P. 5-Seizure report, Ex. P. 6-Sketch, Ex. P. 6(a)-Signature of P.W. 1, Ex. P. 7-Arrest mahazar, Ex. P. 8-Arrest mahazar, Ex. P. 9-Out-patient slip, Ex. P. 10-Report of the Doctor, Ex. P. 11-Wound Certificate, Ex. P. 12-Confirmation letter, Ex. P. 13-lnspection report, Ex. P. 13(a)-Signature of P.W. 3, Ex. P. 14-Sanction letter and M.O. 1-Sandalwood piece, M.O. 2-Hand saw, M.O. 3-Chopper, M.O. 4-Pickaxe, M.O. 5-Plastic bag were marked. The defence has not marked any document. 3. P.W. 1 is the complainant. His evidence is in the same lines as that of the complaint and contents of the charge-sheet. During cross-examination, he states that in the map, length and breadth of Survey No. 232 has not been mentioned. The original map is in the office of the Conservator of Forests. There are shops and houses in the survey number mentioned in the map. P.W. 2 is the Forest Guard. He has deposed that the accused pointed out that the place where they cut the tree. The place of occurrence is about 700 meters. They pointed out the spot where about 13 sandalwood trees were cut. He has also examined the root and measured the same and put the seal. P.W. 2 is the Forest Guard. He has deposed that the accused pointed out that the place where they cut the tree. The place of occurrence is about 700 meters. They pointed out the spot where about 13 sandalwood trees were cut. He has also examined the root and measured the same and put the seal. He has also collected the pieces of wood found on the spot weighing about 60 kgs. The accused also pointed out the place where they had thrown the pickaxe. He has done the panchanama. Then, he went to the office and brought the weighing scale to weigh the sandalwood billets and it was weighing about 40.500 gms. He has marked the same as K N FDF. 13 and affixed the seal. During cross-examination, he states that he went from the spot to the office at 7.45 p.m. and he returned to the place within half-an-hour. There was movement of vehicles on the road where the accused were arrested. The accused were caught inside the forest. Other suggestions put to him were all denied. P.W. 3 is the Investigating Officer. He has deposed that he is the Range Forest Officer. He has received the credible information on 6-7-2004. On the basis of credible information, he sent C.Ws. 1, 2 and 4 and P. Ws. 1 and 2 went in a Departmental vehicle. At about 11.20 p.m., they brought the accused Nayaz and Ansar along with plastic bags, sandalwood pieces, FIR, spot panchanama and arrest panchanama. The second accused sustained injury since he had fallen when he tried to escape. He was sent to Primary Health Centre at 11.30 p.m. The wound certificate has been issued by the Doctor. Then they were subjected to judicial Custody on 7-7-2004. That on 10-7-2004, he along with Jagannath went to inspect the spot of the offence. That on 13-7-2004 Jagannath along with other staff went to the spot and removed the stumps from the spot. 13 stumps weighed about 40.500 gms. That on 14-7-2004, charge-sheet witness No. 6 inspected the sandalwood pieces and issued a certificate as per Ex. P. 12 stating that they are sandalwood pieces. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed. The other suggestions put to him were all denied. 4. 13 stumps weighed about 40.500 gms. That on 14-7-2004, charge-sheet witness No. 6 inspected the sandalwood pieces and issued a certificate as per Ex. P. 12 stating that they are sandalwood pieces. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed. The other suggestions put to him were all denied. 4. The sum and substance of the finding of the Trial Court is as under: The Trial Court has observed at page 18 of its judgment that Section68 imposes a condition that if any persons are available at the time of drawing up of the mahazar, they should be joined as panch witnesses, or if any panch witnesses are available near the scene of the offence, they should be secured for the purpose of drawing up of the mahazar. So, these two things are conspicuously absent so far as this case is concerned. The Trial Court has observed that if the offence is committed within the residential area or this particular scene of offence is close to the residential area and the forest offence has been detected in the daylight and inspite of lot of opportunities, the Forest officials failed to secure independent panch witnesses deliberately. Therefore, the Court can draw an adverse inference against the officials. The mahazar was drawn at a single place pertaining to two places. There is no hard and fast rule as to where panchanama has to be drawn. Learned Sessions Judge has observed that even in the course of cross-examination, it is reaffirmed by these two witnesses that the said sandalwood trees were cut within the vicinity of 3-4 meters inside the forest area and those 13 trees were within the parameters of 10-20 meters or 30-40 meters. After examining these stumps at that particular place, it is stated that they came back to the place where mahazars were drawn. Learned Sessions Judge at paragraph 15 has mentioned that there is no proof placed before the Court to show that the sandalwood trees were cut inside the forest area and it comes within the vicinity of reserve forest area and there must be substantial proof before the Court. But peculiarly in this case, document-Ex. P. 6 has been produced before the Court, which shows that this map pertains to S. Nos. 245 and 232 of Shivapura Village. But peculiarly in this case, document-Ex. P. 6 has been produced before the Court, which shows that this map pertains to S. Nos. 245 and 232 of Shivapura Village. It clearly goes to show that S. No. 232 is marked in red ink by the Investigating Officer as the place where actually the sandalwood trees were cut. This map is not disputed. What the learned Counsel wants to point out is that this map is very old and it does not correctly depict the place of Shivapura Village. Contrary to this particular map, no other map has been produced and the accused have not taken any steps to examine any Village Accountant or the Tahsildar or any authorized persons to dispute this particular map. Specifically, this map bears the seal and signature of Forester-cum-Surveyor, Office of the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Kundapura Division. This map has not been subjected to any cross-examination by the learned Counsel for the accused. When such being the case, they cannot say that this map is a false map. Not even a single suggestion is put during the course of cross-examination to P.W. 3 about this particular map, wherein in the Examination-in-Chief, P.W. 1 has categorically stated that Ex. P. 6 is the map of Shivapura Village pertaining to Reserve Forest Area and he has shown S. No. 232 when the said map was produced before the Court. In my opinion, when P. Ws. 1 and 2 have categorically stated about the topography of the place in their Examination-in-Chief, their evidence cannot be brushed aside. The Trial Court at paragraph 16 has observed that when M.O. 1 is proved to be a sandalwood piece and other articles which were shown to have been seized from the custody of the accused, the accused have to explain before the Court as to how they possessed the sandalwood pieces. It is also established that the accused persons themselves took the Forest officials and showed the place where the sandalwood trees were cut. Considering the large quantity of the sandalwood which is about 17.600 kgs., chips weighing about 60 kgs. and stumps weighing about 40.500 kgs., if the accused are given scot-free from the case, it would be a great loss to the State and they would definitely indulge in committing such offence in future, because it is a profitable and effortless business to the accused persons. and stumps weighing about 40.500 kgs., if the accused are given scot-free from the case, it would be a great loss to the State and they would definitely indulge in committing such offence in future, because it is a profitable and effortless business to the accused persons. Therefore, in order to curb such activities in the forest, the learned Sessions Judge was of the opinion that the accused are liable to be convicted. Therefore, the accused were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- each and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 86 of the Karnataka Forest Act and they were further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- each and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 87 of the Karnataka Forest Act. However, it is ordered that the sentence of imprisonment shall run concurrently and fine shall run consecutively. 5. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the accused have preferred this appeal. 6. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits as under: There are no independent witnesses examined by the Prosecution. The map has not been established. Section 62-C of the Karnataka Forest Act-Certificate of Forest Officer has to be produced in evidence. The trained Officer of the Forest Department who has examined the forest produce and certified that the seized wood were of sandalwood has not been examined. Therefore, the Prosecution has failed to comply with Section 62-C of the Karnataka Forest Act. He relies on the judgment of this Court in the case of Sathish and Another v. State of Karnataka in Crl. A. No. 556 of 2008, wherein relying on the decision in the case of Raghavendrachari v. State of Karnataka, 2010 (6) Kar. L.J. 676 : ILR 2010 Kar. 3382, this Court held that examination of forest produce by the Authorized Officer as per notification under Section 62-C of the Act is mandatory. Therefore, non-compliance of provisions of Section 62-Cof the Act would vitiate prosecution. He also relied on the judgment in the case of Saleem and Another v. State of Karnataka, in Crl. 3382, this Court held that examination of forest produce by the Authorized Officer as per notification under Section 62-C of the Act is mandatory. Therefore, non-compliance of provisions of Section 62-Cof the Act would vitiate prosecution. He also relied on the judgment in the case of Saleem and Another v. State of Karnataka, in Crl. A. No. 994 of 2007, wherein this Court has held that non-compliance of Section62-C of the Act leads to only conclusion that the wooden billets seized are not proved to be the sandalwood billets. 7. Learned Additional State Public Prosecutor submits as under: The injury sustained by accused 2 has not been explained by him while recording 313 statement. The wound certificate reveals that the injury sustained by accused 2 is simple in nature. Therefore, non-explanation of injury sustained by accused 2 is not significant. Attention of the Court was invited to Ex. P. 11-wound certificate, wherein it discloses that accused fell into a bush while escaping from the Forest Officer ride while cutting sandalwood at Shivapura at 6.45 p.m. on 6-7-2004. He has sustained the following injuries: 1. Lacerated wound over lower back size 6 x 1 x 1 1/2 c.m. multiple horizontal abrasion. 2. Superficial abrasion (horizontal) over right scapular region of size 7 c.m. x 1 cm. The above injuries were simple in nature as stated by Medical Officer, Community Health Centre, Hebri-576 112. 8. The main contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that Section 62-C of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963, reads as under: "62-C. 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-matter of his certificate". In the instant case, the seized wood were not produced before the Forest Officer, who is not below the rank of Range Forest Officer, who has undergone training in the examination of forest produce nor authorisation has been produced before the Court below. Initial burden lies on the prosecution to establish that the wood seized were of sandalwood. This has to be certified by the authorized Forest Officer who has undergone training and who can examine and identify that they are sandalwood. To this extent, the prosecution has not adduced any evidence. There is insufficient evidence laid by the prosecution to establish that the wood pieces seized from accused 1 and 2 were of sandalwood. On the other hand, they adopted other method to establish that the seized wood were of sandalwood by examining the map-Ex. P. 6. In the map, it is indicated by red mark the places where the sandalwood trees are grown. Section 83 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, reads as under: "83. Presumption as to maps or plans by authority of Government.--The Court shall presume that maps or plans purporting to be made by the authority of the Central Government or any State Government were so made, and are accurate; but maps or plans made for the purposes of any cause must be proved to be accurate". 9. The map cannot be used to decide the rights of the parties. These facts have to be established by adducing evidence. But in the instant case, the case of the prosecution is that the accused have cut the sandalwood trees and made into small billets and they were carrying the same in a plastic bag. They also seized pickaxe and saw. These aspects have to be established by adducing evidence. More particularly, an Authorized Officer who is well-versed in examining the sandalwood has to be examined in support of the case of the prosecution. This has not been done. The sandalwood pieces have not been examined by the Authorized Officer nor authenticated by the Authorized Officer. Simply by producing the map, the prosecution cannot establish its case that the wood pieces seized from the accused are of sandalwood pieces. Learned Sessions Judge relied on Photostat copy of the map and came to a conclusion that it is an undisputed document and the wood seized were of sandalwood. Simply by producing the map, the prosecution cannot establish its case that the wood pieces seized from the accused are of sandalwood pieces. Learned Sessions Judge relied on Photostat copy of the map and came to a conclusion that it is an undisputed document and the wood seized were of sandalwood. The map only speaks about the boundaries and it cannot decide whether the accused is guilty of the offence or not. Such course of action is not proper. In my view, the finding recorded by the Trial Court is not sound and proper and the same is liable to be set aside. In view of the above discussion, I pass the following: ORDER 1. This criminal appeal is allowed. 2. The judgment and order of conviction passed in S.C. No. 78 of 2006, dated 9-1-2009 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Udupi is hereby set aside. 3. Accused 1 and 2 are acquitted of the charges leveled against them. 4. Bail bonds stand cancelled. 5. The fine amount, if any, deposited shall be refunded to the accused. In this case, Sri Chidambara G.S., learned Counsel was appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist the Counsel for the appellants. The fee of the Amicus Curiae is fixed as Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only). Appeal Allowed.