ORDER : This criminal revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 12th August, 2005 passed by the Sessions Court, Kozhikode (for short, ‘the appellate Court’) confirming the judgment dated 13th February, 2004 in CC No.36/1996 passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Thalasserry (in short, ‘the trial Court’). 2. The revision petitioner is the managing partner of Punjab Aromatics, Kozhikode, a partnership firm engaged in manufacturing and sale of sandal wood oil. On 31/10/1994, the Divisional Forest Officer, Vanasree, Mathottam, Kozhikode along with his party conducted a surprise inspection in the factory of Punjab Aromatics and seized 349 kgs of sandalwood oil stored in the godown. On 8/11/1994, a search was conducted at the premises of Punjab Aromatics and certain documents were seized. Thereafter, on 15/11/1994, samples from the seized sandalwood oil were drawn and forwarded to the chemical examiner, Customs House at Kochi. After conducting enquiry, a complaint was filed against the revision petitioner who was found to be in possession of the sandalwood oil and in charge and responsible for the conduct of the business of the firm for the offences punishable u/s 27(1)(d) and 27(1)(e) of the Kerala Forest Act at the trial Court. The complaint was taken on file as CC No.36/1996. 3. The revision petitioner appeared on summons at the trial Court. He was furnished with copies of the relevant documents. After hearing both sides, charge was framed against the revision petitioner u/s 27(1)(d) and 27(1)(e)(iii) of the Kerala Forest Act. The charge was read over and explained to the revision petitioner who pleaded not guilty. 4. The prosecution examined PWs 1 to 7 and marked Exts.P1 to P7. The revision petitioner was questioned u/s 313 of Cr.P.C. He denied all the incriminating circumstances brought against him during evidence. On the side of the defence, DW1 and DW2 were examined and Exts.D1 to D6 were marked. 5. Considering the evidence on record, the trial Court found the revision petitioner guilty u/s 27(1)(d) of the Kerala Forest Act and he was convicted for the said offence. The revision petitioner was found not guilty for the offence u/s 27(1)(e)(iii) and he was acquitted of the said charge. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months u/s 27(1)(d) of the Kerala Forest Act. The revision petitioner was found not guilty for the offence u/s 27(1)(e)(iii) and he was acquitted of the said charge. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months u/s 27(1)(d) of the Kerala Forest Act. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, the revision petitioner preferred appeal at the appellate Court as Crl.Appeal No.153/2004. The appellate Court as per the judgment dated 12/8/2005 dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence of the trial Court. Challenging the said conviction and sentence passed by the courts below, the revision petitioner has preferred this revision petition. 6. I have heard Sri.M.Ramesh Chander, the learned Senior Counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.Sanal P.Raj, the learned Public Prosecutor. 7. The learned Senior Counsel for the revision petitioner impeached the findings of the Court below and resultant finding as to the guilt mainly on two grounds; (i) The prosecution thoroughly failed to prove that the forest produce (sandalwood oil) seized from the possession of the revision petitioner was illicitly removed from the Reserved Forest and, hence, no ingredients of S.27(1)(d) are established. (ii) The firm Punjab Aromatics purchased the red oil (oil extracted by natural process of exudation) from hawkers as per bills and the same was processed in the factory for which the firm was issued proper license (Ext.D5) and the sandalwood oil seized from the premises of the firm was a legitimate stock. The Courts below committed serious illegality in convicting the revision petitioner overlooking these vital points, submitted the Senior Counsel. The learned Senior Counsel heavily relied on a recent decision of the Apex Court (between the same parties) in Bharath Booshan Aggarwal v. State of Kerala [2021 (5) KLT 611 (SC)] in support of his arguments. 8. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, supported the findings and verdict handed down by the courts below and argued that necessary ingredients of S.27(1)(d) of the Kerala Forest Act had been established and the prosecution has succeeded in proving the case beyond reasonable doubt. The learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that the jurisdiction of this Court in revision is restricted and reevaluation or re-appreciation of evidence is not permissible. 9. The revision petitioner was convicted u/s 27(1)(d) of the Kerala Forest Act. It reads as follows :- “27. The learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that the jurisdiction of this Court in revision is restricted and reevaluation or re-appreciation of evidence is not permissible. 9. The revision petitioner was convicted u/s 27(1)(d) of the Kerala Forest Act. It reads as follows :- “27. Penalties for trespass or damage in Reserved Forests and acts prohibited in such forests. - ["(1) Any person who xxxx (d) knowingly receives or has in possession any forest produce illicitly removed from a Reserved Forest; or a land proposed to be constituted a Reserved Forest;” In order to attract S.27(1)(d), the following two conditions must be satisfied:- (i) A person had knowingly received or were in possession of any forest produce. (ii) Such a forest produce must be illicitly removed from the Reserve Forest or a land proposed to be constituted a Reserved Forest. 10. The defence case is that the raw materials for sandalwood oil seized from the possession of the revision petitioner were procured by the firm legally as per valid bills and the sandalwood oil was manufactured by the firm from the raw materials as per valid license. In short, both the above mentioned conditions were stoutly denied by the defence. The Courts below found that though the firm had license to manufacture sandalwood oil, it did not have license issued by the forest department for storage of the forest produce. The Courts below further found that the documents produced by the defence to account for the possession of the sandalwood oil were false and fabricated. Relying on S.69 of the Kerala Forest Act, it was held that the prosecution need only to prove that the accused was in possession of the forest produce and then the burden of proving that he had obtained the same under license is on the accused. 11. There can be no doubt that sandalwood oil is a forest produce. It has been so held by the Apex Court in Bharath Booshan Aggarwal (supra). There is also no dispute as to the ownership and possession of the seized sandalwood oil. But, mere possession of a forest produce by a person is not an offence under the Kerala Forest Act. S.27(1)(d) makes it an offence when any person is in conscious possession of a forest produce which is illicitly removed from a Reserved Forest. There is also no dispute as to the ownership and possession of the seized sandalwood oil. But, mere possession of a forest produce by a person is not an offence under the Kerala Forest Act. S.27(1)(d) makes it an offence when any person is in conscious possession of a forest produce which is illicitly removed from a Reserved Forest. It is only after the prosecution proves illicit removal of the forest produce from a Reserved Forest and its conscious possession by the accused, the question of accused accounting his possession or offering a reasonable or credible explanation arises. However, the courts below proceeded on the premise that once the prosecution established possession of the forest produce by the accused, the presumption u/s 69 of the Kerala Forest Act gets attracted and then, the burden shifts to the accused to establish that the forest produce was so legitimately secured or sourced by him and his possession was legal. S.69 reads as follows: “69. Presumption that timber or forest produce belongs to Government. -When, in any proceedings taken under this Act, or in consequence of anything done under this Act, a question arises as to whether any forest produce is the property of the Central or State Government, such produce shall be presumed to be the property of the Central or State Government, as the case may be, until the contrary is proved.” 12. A reading of S.69 would show that the presumption therein is only with respect to the ownership of the property i.e., it belongs to State unless the contrary is proved. The Apex Court in Bharath Booshan Aggarwal (supra) held that the presumption u/s 69 is with respect to not a conscious mental state, or a direction by the legislature that a certain state of affairs is deemed to exist, but with respect to ownership of the property. It was further held that seizure of the goods ipso facto does not mean that the accused had conscious knowledge about their illicit nature or origin, or that the accused's inability to account for a transit pass, implied that they procured the goods illegally thus attracting S.27. It was also held that S.27(1)(d) requires conscious knowledge of the nature of the goods i.e., their illicit origin, which compels proof by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. 13. It was also held that S.27(1)(d) requires conscious knowledge of the nature of the goods i.e., their illicit origin, which compels proof by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. 13. Coming to the facts of the present case, there is absolutely no piece of evidence to prove that the revision petitioner had knowingly received or were in possession of any forest produce illicitly removed from the Reserved Forest. In fact, the prosecution never alleged so. So also, the prosecution did not have a case that any forest produce had been illegally removed from the Reserved Forest. PW1 was the DFO, Calicut who detected the offence. PW2 was the DFO, Wild Life Division, Idukki and PW3 was the Forest Officer, Kozhikode Flying Squad Division. PW2 and PW3 accompanied PW1 at the time of detection of the offence. None of them deposed that the sandalwood oil seized from the possession of the revision petitioner was received by him knowingly or the same was illicitly removed from the Reserved Forest. That apart, the trial Court while acquitting the revision petitioner of the charge u/s 27(1)(e)(iii) in clear terms found that there is absolutely no evidence to prove that either the revision petitioner himself or persons engaged by him have cut and removed sandalwood tree or its parts from the Reserved Forest for manufacturing sandalwood oil. Both the courts below found that the application filed by the revision petitioner as CMP No. 509/1996 for the release of the seized articles shows conclusively that the revision petitioner was in conscious possession of the sandalwood oil seized and he had participation in keeping the same in the premises of the firm. It must be noted that the application for release u/s 451 Cr.P.C. was filed on the premise that the seized sandalwood oil belonged to the firm Punjab Aromatics which sourced it legally. 14. Ext.D5 produced on the defence side would show that the revision petitioner's firm held a valid L-4 license (Ext.D5) issued by the Central Excise authorities to manufacture sandalwood oil. DW2, the Superintendent of Central Excise Department, Kozhikode, deposed that enquiries were conducted before grant of Ext.D5 license. PW1 has categorically admitted that no license is prescribed by the Kerala Forest Act for dealing in or for processing sandalwood oil. DW2, the Superintendent of Central Excise Department, Kozhikode, deposed that enquiries were conducted before grant of Ext.D5 license. PW1 has categorically admitted that no license is prescribed by the Kerala Forest Act for dealing in or for processing sandalwood oil. No permit or licence is required for manufacture and possession of sandalwood oil except the L-4 licence from the Central Excise Department which the firm admittedly possessed. Hence, by mere possession of the sandalwood oil in the firm's godown, it cannot be presumed that its possession was illegal or unauthorised unless it is established by the prosecution that it was illegally removed from the Reserved Forest with the knowledge of the revision petitioner or the firm. The defence case is that the oil was produced by the revision petitioner's firm from the raw materials, i.e., red oil, which they had purchased from many hawkers. They relied upon Ext.D1 series bills to prove the same. It has come out in evidence that a search was conducted at the premises of the firm and various documents pertaining to the seized sandalwood oil were taken into custody. But absolutely no investigation has been conducted in respect of those documents. Those documents were not produced by the prosecution also. No investigation was conducted by the investigation agency to find out the source of the seized sandalwood oil. No investigation was conducted to ascertain whether the seized sandalwood oil were illegally removed from Reserved Forest or not. Still, the Court below disbelieved the documents produced by the defence highlighting certain overwriting and corrections therein. No doubt, the prosecution has led evidence to prove that the forest produce was kept in the godown of the revision petitioner's firm. As stated already, this per se does not establish illicit possession of forest produce within his knowledge. Apart from stating that bills and other documents produced by the defence have some overwriting and corrections and could not be relied on, the prosecution made no effort to establish independently the foundational fact that the revision petitioner had knowingly removed the forest produce illicitly. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the prosecution had discharged its burden of proving beyond reasonable doubt that revision petitioner had knowledge of the fact that the goods seized were illicit in origin so as to attract S.27(1)(d) of the Kerala Forest Act. 15. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the prosecution had discharged its burden of proving beyond reasonable doubt that revision petitioner had knowledge of the fact that the goods seized were illicit in origin so as to attract S.27(1)(d) of the Kerala Forest Act. 15. It is true that the jurisdiction of the High Court in revision is severely restricted and it cannot embark upon re appreciation of evidence. However, if the findings in the judgment under revision have been arrived at by ignoring or excluding relevant materials or by taking into consideration irrelevant/inadmissible materials or the entire approach of the Court in dealing with evidence is patently illegal leading to the miscarriage of justice, nothing prevents the High Court from exercising such revisional powers. The powers u/s 397 r/w S.401 of Cr.P.C. are inherent in nature to correct the judgments and orders of the courts below which suffer from gross illegality or jurisdictional error. As stated already, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the basic ingredients of S.27(1)(d) of the Kerala Forest Act that the revision petitioner had knowledge of the fact that the seized goods were illicit in origin. Hence, I hold that it is a fit case where discretionary power vested with this Court u/s 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C. could be exercised. In the light of the above findings, the conviction and sentence passed by the courts below are set aside. The revision petitioner is found not guilty of the offence charged against him and accordingly he is acquitted. His bail bond is cancelled. The criminal revision petition is allowed as above.