ORDER The revision petitioners herein are the four accused in C.C.No. 460 of 1996 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Thamarassery. They faced prosecution before the court below under Section 27(1)(d) of the Kerala Forest Act, and Rule 3(iii) of the Kerala Forest Produce Transit Rules on the allegation that on 23.09.1993, they were found unauthorisedly transporting some quantity of sandalwood oil in two cars. One of the cars was driven by the first accused with the second accused as passenger, and the other car was driven by the third accused with the 4th accused as passenger therein. The offence was detected by the Sub Inspector of Police, Kunnamangalam, on the basis of secret reliable information. When the Sub Inspector intercepted the vehicles on public road, the two drivers made an attempt to escape, but the police party obstructed the vehicles, and on examination, sandalwood oil contained in four barrels was found being transported in one of the cars. The sandalwood oil was seized as per a mahazar by the Sub Inspector along with the vehicles, and the four accused were arrested on the spot. A crime was also registered by the Sub Inspector on the basis of the arrest and seizure. Subsequently, the crime was transferred to the Forest Department for necessary investigation. Accordingly, an Occurrence Report was registered at the Forest Station, and investigation proceeded. After investigation, the Forest Range Officer of the Thamarassery Forest Range submitted final report in court against the four accused. 2. All the four accused appeared before the learned Magistrate, and pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against them. The prosecution examined nine witnesses, and proved Exts.P1 to P7 documents in the trial court. The MO1 to MO10 properties were also identified during trial. 3. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied the incriminating circumstances, and projected a defence that nothing was seized from their possession. They examined a witness in defence as DW1. 4. On an appreciation of the evidence, the trial court found all the four accused guilty. On conviction, they were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year each, and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each under Section 27(1)(d) of the Kerala Forest Act, and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each under Rule 3(iii) of the Kerala Forest Produces Transit Rules. 5. On conviction, they were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year each, and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each under Section 27(1)(d) of the Kerala Forest Act, and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each under Rule 3(iii) of the Kerala Forest Produces Transit Rules. 5. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 30.05.2000, the accused approached the Court of Session, Kozhikode with Crl.A.No. 272 of 2000. In appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc-I), Kozhikode, confirmed the conviction and sentence, and accordingly, dismissed the appeal by judgment dated 22.04.2003. 6. Now the accused are before this Court in revision, challenging the legality and propriety of the conviction and sentence. Their definite case is that there is no legal, satisfactory and acceptable evidence to connect them with the alleged seizure of sandalwood oil, or to prove the alleged seizure beyond reasonable doubt. 7. On a perusal of the entire materials, and on hearing both sides, I find that there are certain suspicious circumstances surrounding the prosecution case. PW1 is the Sub Inspector who detected the offence, and Ext.P1 is the detection mahazar prepared by him. Ext.P1 is the first document in the process of detection, and this must be the material document. This document must contain all the necessary elements to prove the alleged offence. The prosecution case is that some quantity of sandalwood oil contained in four barrels was seen in two vehicles. One is a Maruthi car, No. KL-10/214, and the other is an Ambassador car, No. KRN 4057. The Ext.P1 mahazar shows that both the vehicles were inspected, and taken into custody by the Sub Inspector, and four barrels of sandalwood oil were seized. The detection mahazar does not show from which car the barrels of sandalwood oil were seized. When examined as PW1, the Sub Inspector stated that the barrels were seized from the Ambassador car. There is no explanation why it is not specifically recorded in the detection mahazar. A reading of the detection mahazar will show that the barrels of sandalwood oil were seized from both the vehicles. There is no explanation why it is not specifically recorded, if the barrels were seized only from one of the vehicles. 8. The detection in this case was made on 23.09.1993. The property list in this case shows that the properties were produced in court only on 12.11.1993. There is no explanation why it is not specifically recorded, if the barrels were seized only from one of the vehicles. 8. The detection in this case was made on 23.09.1993. The property list in this case shows that the properties were produced in court only on 12.11.1993. There is no explanation for the delay in producing the properties, and it is not known in whose safe custody the properties were till 12.11.1993. This unexplained delay creates some doubt regarding some possibility of tampering with the properties. 9. Ext.P3 is the Form-I Report (OR) registered by the Forest Range officer on the basis of the police report. This Form-I report does not contain the necessary details regarding the vehicles seized, or the vehicles from which barrels of sandalwood oil were seized. The column No. 1 meant for describing the nature of the offence must contain these details. But such details are not there in the Form-I report. This also creates some suspicion regarding the prosecution case. 10. The detection mahazar specifically shows that samples of 150ml each were taken by the Sub Inspector from the four barrels, and the four samples were produced in court. The Ext.P7 report of analysis shows that the samples were forwarded from the court to the laboratory for analysis only in November, 1999. There is absolutely no explanation why steps were not taken till November, 1999 to forward the samples for analysis. When the detection mahazar shows that samples of 150ml were taken, such quantity was not received in fact by the Chemical Examiner. The report shows that one sample bottle contained 110 ml of liquid, the second one contained 140 ml of liquid, the third one contained 145 ml and the fourth one contained 140 ml. There is no explanation what happened to the full quantity of liquid contained in the four sample bottles. The property involved is sandalwood oil. There is no possibility of sandalwood oil being evaporated, especially when kept in a sealed bottle. The prosecution has no explanation for the difference in the quantity. 11. The prosecution has no specific case as regards the role and complicity of the accused Nos. 2 and 4. The property involved is sandalwood oil. There is no possibility of sandalwood oil being evaporated, especially when kept in a sealed bottle. The prosecution has no explanation for the difference in the quantity. 11. The prosecution has no specific case as regards the role and complicity of the accused Nos. 2 and 4. Even according to the prosecution, and also the descriptions in the detection mahazar, the second accused was seen as a passenger in the Maruthi car, and the fourth accused was seen as a passenger in the Ambassador car. If they were only passengers, it is not known why they are being prosecuted along with the others who were seen driving the vehicles. The Sub Inspector who detected the offence has nothing to say in evidence regarding the role or complicity of the accused Nos. 2 and 4. His evidence is only that he arrested four persons on the spot, and one of them was seen driving a Maruthi car, and the other was seen driving an ambassador car. He did not say specifically who was the driver of the Maruthi car, or who was the driver of the Ambassador car. In examination in chief, he did not state anything identifying any of the accused as the person or persons arrested by him on the spot. In a case like this, the detecting officer must tell the court who was found transporting or possessing contraband article, and that person must be specifically identified in court. Such very essential things are not there in the evidence given by PW1, who detected the offence. Anyway, when cross examined by the defence, he stated that the accused Nos. 3 and 4 shown in the FIR were there in the Ambassador car. First, he stated that he cannot identify who were the driver and the passenger in the Ambassador car. He has no case that any quantity of sandalwood oil was seized from the Maruthi car. If so, there is no explanation why the accused Nos. 1 and 2 are being prosecuted on the allegation that they were also found transporting sandalwood oil. Though he stated that the accused Nos. 3 and 4 mentioned in the FIR must be the persons found in the Ambassador car, he further stated that he cannot now identify them. If so, there is no explanation why the accused Nos. 1 and 2 are being prosecuted on the allegation that they were also found transporting sandalwood oil. Though he stated that the accused Nos. 3 and 4 mentioned in the FIR must be the persons found in the Ambassador car, he further stated that he cannot now identify them. This means that the Sub Inspector who detected the offence could not identify any of the accused during trial as the person or persons who allegedly possessed or transported sandalwood oil. This particular aspect is very material, and this will cut at the very root of the prosecution case. These important aspects were not examined by the trial court or the appellate court. 12. As discussed above, I find that the whole prosecution case is tainted with doubts regarding the nature of the article seized, the quantity of the samples collected, and also the exact identity of the persons who were found transporting sandalwood oil. In the above circumstances, the accused are entitled for acquittal on the benefit of doubt. I find that there is no legal and satisfactory evidence to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. In the result, this revision petition is allowed. The revision petitioners are found not guilty of the offences under Section 27(1)(d) of the Kerala Forest Act, and Rule 3(iii) of the Kerala Forest Produce Transit Rules, and accordingly, they are acquitted of the said offences in revision. The conviction and sentence against the revision petitioners in C.C. No. 460 of 1996 of the trial court, confirmed in appeal by the Court of Session, Kozhikode, in Crl.A.No. 272 of 2000, will stand set aside. The revision petitioners will stand released from prosecution, and the bail bonds executed by them will stand discharged.