ORDER : This petition is filed by the accused – petitioners herein seeking for a direction to set aside the order dated 22.10.2011 passed by the Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.1/2011 confirming the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court in C.C.No.5462/2006 dated 15.12.2010. By the said order of the Trial Court, the petitioners have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 104A of the Karnataka Forest Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,500/each, which has been confirmed by the Appellate Court. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned HCGP for the respondent – State. 3. Factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that on 17.11.2002 the office of the Range Forest Officer on receiving credible information, the Forest Guard and staff of Aralihalli Section had gone near Seegehalla on a road leading from Athigunda to Belligere in their official jeep bearing Regn.No.KA18/G426 and were waiting there for some time. At that time, they saw a motor cycle coming towards them from the road leading from forest area. Though the officials had given signal to stop the vehicle, the said vehicle turned around and had started moving in the opposite direction. Hence, the forest officials had chased the motor cycle. In the meanwhile, a tractor had come from the opposite direction. Then the tractor as well as the motor cyclist stopped their respective vehicles and all the persons in both the vehicles started running away. The forest personnel apprehended the persons who were riding on the bike who are said to be Accused Nos.1 and 2 – petitioners 1 and 2 herein as well as the persons who were traveling in the tractor said to be Accused Nos.3 and 4 – petitioners 3 and 4 herein. Some other persons are said to have run away from the spot. Upon searching the tractor, they found two teakwood logs and three rosewood logs. However, the accused did not have any pass or permit to transport the said wooden logs. Immediately, the properties were seized and were numbered as 1 to 5. The name of the other persons who had run away from the spot was also enquired. Thereafter a mahazar was drawn. FIR came to be registered which was sent to the Magistrate. However, the accused did not have any pass or permit to transport the said wooden logs. Immediately, the properties were seized and were numbered as 1 to 5. The name of the other persons who had run away from the spot was also enquired. Thereafter a mahazar was drawn. FIR came to be registered which was sent to the Magistrate. The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of witnesses and filed the final report against the accused persons. The Trial Court issued process against the accused, recorded the plea of the accused and thereafter recorded the evidence of the complainant as well as the accused. Thereafter, the Trial Court rendered its judgment and sentence dated 15.12.2010 convicting the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 104A of the Karnataka Forest Act and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,500/each. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.1/2011, which came to be dismissed by order dated 22.10.2011 thus confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court. It is these judgments which are under challenge in this petition by the petitioners, urging various grounds. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the courts below have committed a serious error in holding that the prosecution has proved the case beyond all reasonable doubt. It is his contention that the prosecution is guilty of suppressing material evidence and has not come forward with the true version of the incident. The learned counsel contends that the courts below have committed serious error in relying on the evidence of PWs 1 to 6 who were official witnesses and contends that added to the said fact, their evidences do not corroborate each other. In that, it is contended that their evidence is full of material omissions and contradictions and suffers from legal infirmities. Moreover, it is not trustworthy since their evidence is inconsistent with the contents of the complaint. The learned counsel further contends that though mahazars Exhibit P1 to P5 have been marked, the prosecution has failed to examine any independent witnesses or local persons as panchas while conducting the said mahazar. Moreover, it is not trustworthy since their evidence is inconsistent with the contents of the complaint. The learned counsel further contends that though mahazars Exhibit P1 to P5 have been marked, the prosecution has failed to examine any independent witnesses or local persons as panchas while conducting the said mahazar. It is the defence of the petitioners that on account of Ramzan festival they had kept some firewood near Masjid after obtaining permission of the forest officials and on that day they were transporting the same in a tractor belonging to Accused No.3. It was under the said circumstance that the prosecution has created a story that the wood was being transported by the petitioners illegally. Hence, the learned counsel contends that Section 104A of the Karnataka Forest Act would not attract the case of the prosecution. It is his further contention of the learned counsel that the courts below ought to have acquitted the petitioners on the ground that prosecution has not investigated regarding the place from where the alleged products were removed. The fact that the petitioners were implicated solely based on their voluntary statements before the forest official witnesses, casts a serious doubt in the case of the prosecution. Further, the statements of those official witnesses are not consistent with each other. The whole case of the prosecution relying solely on the official witnesses PWs 1 and 2 and the conduct of the witnesses clearly goes to show that the same is a created story by the prosecution to lodge a false case against the petitioners for statistical purpose. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the courts below have failed to take into consideration that in order to cut the trees, equipment such as axe, saw and choppers were required but however, no such articles have been seized from the possession of the petitioners. Immediately after seizure of the property, the report has also not been sent to DFO and further no independent witness having been examined, the courts below failed to consider that there was clear violation of Section 62A of the Karnataka Forest Act. Immediately after seizure of the property, the report has also not been sent to DFO and further no independent witness having been examined, the courts below failed to consider that there was clear violation of Section 62A of the Karnataka Forest Act. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment of this court in the case of BANYA NAIKA vs. STATE BY RFO, BHADRAVATHI RANGE, BHADRAVATHI ( 2019 (3) KCCR 2772 ), the relevant portion of which reads as under: “14. Apart from that, the Investigating Officer was also not examined before the trial Court. Though it is well settled that the evidence of official witness or forest official cannot be discarded as not trustworthy, otherwise which is reliable and believable, which can be the base for conviction and non examination of the Investigating Officer is not fatal in all cases, but here in this case, PWs.1 to 3 are Forest Guards who are said to have arrested accused No.1 and seized the alleged Sandal wood chips. But once, the investigation was handed over to the higher officer, it is the duty of the higher officer to inspect the spot, prepare the spot mahazar and to confirm from which place/tree the wood has been cut and removed and examine the nearby witnesses. There is no explanation from the prosecution as to why the Investigating officer has not examined any witnesses and not prepared any panchanama and even the Investigating Officer has not referred the seized articles to the higher authorities or Range Forest Officer to certify that the seized articles were Sandal wood pieces or not. These questions are required to be answered by the Investigating Officer. Therefore, the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused under Sections 86 and 87 of the Act. Apart from that, though, PWs.1 to 3 stated that there are no persons available for taking them as witnesses to the seizure, but nothing has been mentioned in Ex.P.1mahazar to show that PWs. 1 to 3 were trying to get the independent witness, but they were unable to secure. Therefore, the contention of the prosecution witness for nonjoining independent witness due to nonavailability is unacceptable. The same should be elicited through the Investigating Officer, but the Investigating Officer was not examined. 1 to 3 were trying to get the independent witness, but they were unable to secure. Therefore, the contention of the prosecution witness for nonjoining independent witness due to nonavailability is unacceptable. The same should be elicited through the Investigating Officer, but the Investigating Officer was not examined. Therefore, nonexamination of Investigating Officer is fatal to the case of the prosecution. Hence, on all these grounds, the learned counsel for the petitioners prays that the petition be allowed and the impugned order passed by the Trial Court which has been affirmed by the Appellate Court be set aside. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent – State supports both the impugned orders of the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court and contends that the courts below, on a careful consideration of the evidence as well as the material on record, have rightly convicted the accused – petitioners herein and hence the judgments of the Trial Court also affirmed by the Appellate Court being just and proper, needs no interference in this petition. 6. On a careful consideration of the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners – accused and the learned HCGP for the State and on a careful scrutiny of the material on record, it is relevant to refer to the evidence of PWs 1 to 6 and so also the contents in Exhibits P1 to P6 which have been marked on behalf of the prosecution in order to substantiate the case against the accused. As per Exhibit P5, the Range Forest Officer had seized the rosewood and teakwood logs and also the tractor which was used by the accused for transporting the said wood. Accused Nos.1 to 4 – petitioners herein were apprehended by the team consisting PWs 1 to 5. The Range Forest Officer is said to have led the team. PW6 the vital witness on the part of the prosecution being the Range Forest Officer who secured PWs 1 to 5, has specifically stated that during the course of investigation, he recorded the statement of witnesses and voluntary statement of witnesses. At the instance of the accused, they proceeded to the scene of crime from where three wooden logs were cut and panchanama has been drawn mentioning the measurement of the logs as well, vide Exhibit P5 in the presence of official witnesses but they did not secure any independent witnesses. At the instance of the accused, they proceeded to the scene of crime from where three wooden logs were cut and panchanama has been drawn mentioning the measurement of the logs as well, vide Exhibit P5 in the presence of official witnesses but they did not secure any independent witnesses. The description in Exhibit P5 of the seizure mahazar said to be conducted by PW5 being the RFO but the tractor which was used by the accused had not been subjected to photos in order to prove that the said tractor had in fact been used by the accused to transport the teak and rosewood logs. But PW5 RFO only subjected to photo Exhibit P2 and the same has been included in the chargesheet laid by him. The evidence of PW6 does not repose confidence in the mind of the court, in addition to the evidence of PWs 1 to 5 being forest officials relating to seizure of rosewood and teakwood logs depicted in Exhibit P5 of the seizure mahazar. But the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court have not appreciated the evidence on record in a proper perspective. Hence, it has resulted in a miscarriage of justice. Merely because PW6 being the IO had conducted the investigation and laid the chargesheet against the accused, however, it is the duty cast on the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt by putting forth cogent and corroborative evidence. Further, though nine accused were said to have been involved in the case as narrated in the chargesheet and they were also put on trial, the Trial Court convicted only Accused Nos.1 to 4 – the present petitioners. But the remaining accused were acquitted. When once the case in respect of Accused Nos.5 to 9 ended in acquittal and when they were discharged from the charge framed against them regarding cutting and transporting teakwood and rosewood logs, the co-accused as well need to be extended acquittal. In criminal justice system, when the case against co-accused have been dropped, the benefit of doubt shall be extended to the other accused petitioners herein as well. But however, in this case, accused Nos.1 to 4 have been convicted though accused nos.5 to 9 have been acquitted of the offences. In criminal justice system, when the case against co-accused have been dropped, the benefit of doubt shall be extended to the other accused petitioners herein as well. But however, in this case, accused Nos.1 to 4 have been convicted though accused nos.5 to 9 have been acquitted of the offences. Further, the courts below have solely relied on the evidence of official witnesses PWs 1 to 5 and have convicted the petitioners. Hence, I am of the opinion that the judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court which has been affirmed by the Appellate Court requires to be set aside, in terms of the aforesaid reasons. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The revision petition filed by the petitioners under Sections 397 read with 401 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. Consequently, the impugned judgment/order passed by the Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.1/2011 dated 22.10.2011 confirming the judgment and order dated 15.12.2010 passed by the Trial Court in C.C.No.5462/2006 is hereby set aside. Accused Nos.1 to 4 – petitioners herein are hereby acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 104A of the Karnataka Forest Act. If any fine amount is deposited, the same shall be refunded to the petitioners, on proper identification. Bail bond if any executed by the petitioners, shall stand cancelled.