ORDER : Revision petitioner/accused feeling aggrieved by judgment of the first appellate Court on the file of I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Uttar Kannada sitting at Sirsi (Itinerary at Yellapur) in Crl.A.No.67/2014, dated 7.6.2019, preferred this revision petition. 2. Parties to the revision petition are referred with their ranks as assigned in the trial Court for the sake of convenience. 3. The factual matrix leading to the case of prosecution can be stated in nutshell to the effect that 7.10.2009 at about 10.00 a.m. on receiving of credible information, informant/Range Forest Officer of Dandeli went to the spot and found TATA Indica Car bearing No.KA-22/A-3287 was parked in front of the house of accused at Badagunda village. On confirming the credible information searched car, it was found that there were 3 teak wood logs, 8 horns of stag and 4 horns of wild goat. The teak wood logs and wildlife produces were recovered under panchanama. The said forest produces were found to be in the car belonging to accused, who was in conscious possession of the same without there being any pass or permit from forest department. On these allegations, case is registered in Dandeli Forest Crime No. 1/2009-2010. The investigating officer on conclusion of investigation, filed charge sheet. 4. In response to summons, accused appeared through counsel. The trial Court on being prima facie satisfied, framed charge against accused for the offences alleged against him. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Prosecution to prove the allegations made against the accused relied on the evidence of PWs.1 to 5 and documents at Exs.P.1 to 9. 5. On closure of prosecution evidence, statement of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. came to be recorded. Accused denied all incriminating material evidence appearing against him and claimed that false case is filed. The trial Court after appreciation of evidence on record convicted the accused for the offences proved against him and imposed sentence as per order of sentence. 6. Accused challenged the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court before the First Appellate Court on the file of I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Uttar Kannada sitting at Sirsi (Itinerary at Yellapur) in Crl.A.No.67/2014. 6. Accused challenged the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court before the First Appellate Court on the file of I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Uttar Kannada sitting at Sirsi (Itinerary at Yellapur) in Crl.A.No.67/2014. The First Appellate Court after re-appreciation of evidence on record by judgment dated 7.6.2019, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court. 7. Revision petitioner/accused challenging concurrent finding of both courts below contended that prosecution has not proved that seized TATA Indica Car bearing No.KA-22/A-3287 belongs to accused and he is owner of the same from where forest produces were alleged to have been seized. P.Ws.1 and 2 have given contrary evidence regarding description of car by stating it as Maruthi Car. Therefore, seizure of forest produces from either Maruthi car or TATA Indica Car bearing No.KA-22/A-3287 is very much doubtful, further search and seizure of forest produces from the car alleged to have been belong to accused is not in accordance with procedure contemplated under the Karnataka Forest Act and also under the Wild Life Protection Act. Both courts below have also not properly appreciated the evidence of prosecution witnesses in terms of legal requirement to prove the seizure of forest produces. The approach and appreciation of oral and documentary evidence by both courts below are contrary to law and evidence on record. Therefore, prayed for allowing revision petition and to set aside the judgment of both courts below. Consequently to acquit the accused from the charges leveled against him. 8. In response to notice, learned HCGP appeared for respondent/State. 9. Heard the arguments of both sides. 10. On careful perusal of oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the prosecution, it would go to show that on 7.10.2009 at 10.00 a.m. TATA Indica Car bearing No.KA-22/A-3287 belonging to accused was parked in front of his house. On the strength of credible information received by informant/Range Forest Officer, Dandeli search was effected and found that 3 teak wood logs, 8 horns of stag and 4 horns of wild goat in the car. The same were seized under panchanama. It is further alleged by prosecution that forest produces were being in conscious possession of accused in the car belonging to him without there being any valid pass or permit for possessing the forest produces. The same were seized under panchanama. It is further alleged by prosecution that forest produces were being in conscious possession of accused in the car belonging to him without there being any valid pass or permit for possessing the forest produces. The prosecution to prove the allegations made against the accused mainly relies on the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5 and seizure panchanama Ex.P.1 and photographs Exs.P.2 to 5, Rough sketch map Ex.P.6 and village map Ex.P.7 that seizure report as per Ex.P.8. P.Ws.1 and 2 panch witnesses to the seizure panchanama Ex.P.1 deposed to the effect that forest officials secured them as panch witnesses by stating that there were theft of wood and horns of wild goat, one Maruthi car and forest produces appearing in the photographs at Exs.P.2 to 4 came to be seized under panchanama. Their evidence is contrary to case of prosecution that TATA Indica Car bearing No.KA-22/A-3287 was seized and forest produces appearing in photographs Exs.P.2 to 4 were found. 11. P.W.3 is forest guard and P.W.4 is RFO, who went to the place of information near house of accused. On seeing forest officials, accused fled away from the place. There was TATA Indica Car bearing No.KA-22/A-3287 and on search of the same, they found 3 teak wood logs, 8 horns of stag and 4 horns of wild goat. The teak woods were seized with seal of red colour by giving identification number at Sl.Nos.1 to 3. Horns of stag and horns of wild goat were seized at Sl.Nos. 1 to 12 and the same were seized under panchanama as per Ex.P.1. The said description as deposited by P.Ws.3 and 4 has not been certified by evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 during the course of their evidence before the Court. They have merely stated that forest produces have been seized from the car. P.W.5 is RFO, who conducted further investigation after receiving records from the investigating officer P.W.4. Thereafter, he visited to spot and prepared sketch map as per Ex.P.6 and obtained village map as per Ex.P.7. On completion of investigation filed charge sheet. 12. The prosecution first of all has not proved that either TATA Indica Car bearing No.KA-22/A-3287 or Maruthi Car as deposed by P.Ws.1 and 2 belongs to accused. Thereafter, he visited to spot and prepared sketch map as per Ex.P.6 and obtained village map as per Ex.P.7. On completion of investigation filed charge sheet. 12. The prosecution first of all has not proved that either TATA Indica Car bearing No.KA-22/A-3287 or Maruthi Car as deposed by P.Ws.1 and 2 belongs to accused. The investigating officer P.W.6 has not collected any document to prove ownership of the car from where forest produces were seized under panchanama at Ex.P.1. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4, would go to show that car was parked in front of the house of accused. The mere evidence to the effect that car was parked in front of the house of accused does not mean that accused is owner of the car. The prosecution by tangible evidence on record must demonstrate that car from where forest produces were seized is belonged to accused, so as to hold that accused was in conscious possession of forest produces. Secondly, prosecution has to prove that 3 teak wood pieces alleged to have been found in the car are in fact teak wood in terms of Section 62(C) of the Karnataka Forest Act and certificate has to be obtained from RFO. It is profitable to refer Section 62(C) of the Karnataka Forest Act for ready reference, which reads as follows: 62C. 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 authorised 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 things 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 present case, evidence of investigating officer P.W.5 is totally silent as to whether seized teak wood pieces were subjected to examination of RFO and any certificate is obtained in terms of Section 62(C) of the Karnataka Forest Act. Therefore, seizure of teak wood appearing in photographs as per Ex.Ps.2 to 4 cannot be accepted as sufficient evidence to prove that seized wood from car is teak wood. The prosecution has not produced any certificate in terms of Section 62(C) of the Karnataka Forest Act. Therefore, evidence of P.W.5 and contents of panchanama cannot be relied to hold that seized woods are in fact teak wood as alleged by prosecution. 13. Learned counsel for revision petitioner relied on judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Nayaz Alias Razak and another v/s. State of Karnataka, wherein it has been observed and held that “Non production of certificate in terms of Section 62(C) of the Karnataka Forest Act by the authorized forest officer, who has undergone training to examine and identified that seized material are sandalwood alleged to have been seized from the accused and to that extent, the evidence of prosecution is unreliable. This Court has also considered in the very same judgment regarding other mode of proving to establish his woods were sandalwood by examining map Ex.P.6. It has been held that in terms of Section 83 of the Indian Evidence Act, the map cannot be used to decide right of parties. Therefore, it cannot be conclusively held that accused was in conscious possession of seized sandalwood material in this case.” In the present case also the seized wood were not subjected to examination of RFO and obtained certificate to prove that the seized wood are in fact teak wood. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the seizure and possession of forest produces i.e. teak wood without valid pass or permit. 14. The prosecution alleges that accused was found in possession of 8 horns of stag and 4 horns of wild goat in relation to animal specified in Schedule I of the Wild Life Protection Act. The trial Court as well as the first appellate Court held that the accused was in conscious possession of 8 horns of stag and 4 horns of wild goat and came to conclusion that the same attracts penal action in terms of section 51 of the Wild Life Protection Act. The trial Court as well as the first appellate Court held that the accused was in conscious possession of 8 horns of stag and 4 horns of wild goat and came to conclusion that the same attracts penal action in terms of section 51 of the Wild Life Protection Act. The prosecution first of all has not proved conscious possession of seizure of 8 horns of stag and 4 horns of wild goat and seizure of the same in terms of Section 50 of the Wild Life Protection Act, so as to attract penal action in terms of Section 51 of the Wild Life Protection Act. It is pertinent to note that in terms of Section 55 of the Wild Life Protection Act, no courts shall take cognizance of any offences against the Act except on the complaint of any person in terms of Section 55 of the Wild Life Protection Act and the same is reproduced for ready reference, which reads as under “[55.Cognizance of offences.—No court shall take cognizance of any offence against this Act except on the complaint of any person other than— (a) the Director of Wild Life Preservation or any other officer authorised in this behalf by the Central Government; or 2 [(aa) the Member-Secretary, Central Zoo Authority in matters relating to violation of the provisions of Chapter IVA; or] [(ab) Member-Secretary, Tiger Conservation Authority; or (ac) Director of the concerned tiger reserve; or] (b) the Chief Wild Life Warden, or any other officer authorised in this behalf by the State Government [subject to such conditions as may be specified by that Government]; or [(bb) the officer-in-charge of the zoo in respect of violation of provisions of section 38J; or] (c) any person who has given notice of not less than sixty days, in the manner prescribed, of the alleged offence and of his intention to make a complaint to the Central Government or the State Government or the officer authorised as aforesaid.] On going through the material evidence placed on record by prosecution, it is evident that cognizance was taken by the trial Court without there being any complaint by any of forest officials covered under Section 55 of the Wild Life Protection Act. Therefore, on this count also conviction of accused for the offence punishable under Section 51 of the Wild Life Protection Act cannot be legally sustained. Therefore, on this count also conviction of accused for the offence punishable under Section 51 of the Wild Life Protection Act cannot be legally sustained. The courts below erroneously proceeded to believe oral evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5 without appreciating above referred legal requirements for search and seizure, so also conscious possession of forest material without there being any evidence to prove the ownership of car proceeded to hold accused guilty. The said finding recorded by both courts below cannot be legally sustained. Therefore, interference of this Court is required. Consequently, proceed to pass the following: ORDER : Revision petition filed by revision petitioner/accused is hereby allowed. The judgment of the First Appellate Court on the file of I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Uttar Kannada sitting at Sirsi (Itinerary at Yellapur) in Crl.A.No.67/2014, dated 7.6.2019, confirming the judgment of trial Court on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC, Dandeli, in CC.No.735/2010, dated 3.6.2014 is hereby set aside. The accused is acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 24(j), 50(3) of the Karnataka Forest Act and Section 51(1) of the Wild Life Protection Act. The bail bond of accused and that of his surety stand discharged. Fine amount, if any deposited by accused, is ordered to be refunded to appellant/accused. The registry is directed to transmit the records with the copy of this judgment to trial Court.