JUDGMENT : Jay Sengupta, J. 1. This is a revisional application challenging an appellate order of conviction and sentence dated 29.12.2023 passed in an appeal preferred by the petitioner being Criminal Appeal No.7 of 2023 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Mayabunder thereby affirming the Trial Court’s Judgment dated 23.03.2022 passed in CR Case No.15 of 2014 convicting the petitioner-accused and another to suffer simple imprisonment for a term of 3 years for each of the offences along with the fine of Rs.30,000/-to be paid by each of the convicts punishable under Sections 9, 39(3) and 40 (2) of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, the sentences having to run simultaneously. 2. A complaint case was filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate at Mayabunder under Sections 2, 9, 39(3), 50, 51 and 40 (2) of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 with the allegations that on 01.12.2013 at about 3.20 hours the Range Officer, Bakultala received a secret information about illegal hunting, possession and illegal trading of Wildlife Scheduled Species at Tikka Dera. The Range Officer along with team rushed to the house of the petitioner with search warrant and made search in presence of the independent witnesses. The team found Andaman Wild Pig Meat (2 kgs approximately) in stainless steel basin, plastic hunting traps, remaining ropes for making traps, a wooden piece for meat chopping and a ballam. Seizure was made and the accused was arrested. After a purported investigation, the complaint was filed. 3. In the course of trial, the prosecution examined 8 witnesses. PW-1 was the Ranger Officer who conducted the raid. PW-2 was the Forest Guard and was a raiding party member. PW-3 was the another raiding party member who was also a Mazdoor under the Forest Department. PW-4 was only the real independent witness, being the Panchayat Ward Member. PW-5 was the Investigating Officer of the case. PW-6 was the Veterinary Doctor, who examined the meat. PW-7 was the Ranger who made the complaint. PW-8 was the Scientist, who made the report regarding the meat in question. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted as follows. First, the most important document being seizure memo (Exhibit-1) suffers from several defects. The format was of the seizure of forest produce and was not meant for seizure of Wildlife. More importantly, no place of seizure was indicated in the said seizure list. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted as follows. First, the most important document being seizure memo (Exhibit-1) suffers from several defects. The format was of the seizure of forest produce and was not meant for seizure of Wildlife. More importantly, no place of seizure was indicated in the said seizure list. Only alleged independent witness PW-4 was actually an interested one as he had admitted in his cross examination and he had good relation with the forest officials. The evidence of the raiding party members suffers from severe contradictions. In the cross-examination, PW-3 stated that an old lady probably the mother of the accused was present in the house. The seizure of meat was made from the said mother of the accused. This clearly contradicted the prosecution case about seizure of the offending meat from the accused himself. PW-1 and PW-5 both stated in evidence that they had recorded separate statements of the accused. But PW-5 did not know Bengali. The two statements were exhibited and both were in Bengali. In recall, PW-1 was cross-examined and he stated that the statement of the accused was also recorded in presence of the others. Yet, no other independent witness was examined. The presumption under section 57 of the Wildlife Protection Act will come in only once the possession is proved. Here, possession of the offending meat could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Reliance was also placed on Section 50 sub-sections (8) & (9) of the said Act. The appeal preferred by the other appellant is still pending. 5. Learned counsel representing the State submitted as follows. The evidence of PW-1 is clear that the accused was found at the place and was interrogated. Moreover, there was no cross-examination of PW-1 on the question of presence of the accused. PW-1 even went to the house of other suspect Pobitro Biswas along with the accused. His brother was there although he was not examined by the prosecution. The statement of PW-3 (Exhibit-7) was recorded in the presence of the independent witness being the mazdoor of the Forest Department. PW-2 also deposed that the accused was there and he confessed. In cross-examination, he stated that he did not meet any lady. However, although PW-3 stated about the presence of the accused at the place. The statement of PW-3 (Exhibit-7) was recorded in the presence of the independent witness being the mazdoor of the Forest Department. PW-2 also deposed that the accused was there and he confessed. In cross-examination, he stated that he did not meet any lady. However, although PW-3 stated about the presence of the accused at the place. In cross-examination, he stated that the a lady was present and the meat was seized from the mother of the accused. Exhibit-4 was nevertheless executed in his presence. However, he did not know Bengali. PW-4 was an independent witness and was witness to the seizure list. His statement in the cross-examination that he had good relation with the forest officers did not question his credibility as an independent witness. He was a ward member of the Panchayat. PW-5 clarified the issue of exhibit-7 being recorded in Bengali. He clearly stated in the chief that exhibit-7 was recorded under his aegis, but by others. 6. I heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the revision petition, the orders passed by the learned Courts and the evidence and other materials on record. 7. The most important document in the proceeding is the seizure list for seizure of offending meat, which was found to be the meat of a Scheduled animal as per the forensic report. This document was signed even by the sole independent witness PW-4. 8. The contention that the seizure list is not in form cannot be fatal to the veracity of such document. The non-recording in particular form, if at all, would be a mere irregularity. 9. However, the place of seizure is an important ingredient of a seizure list. If the same is kept vacant, it casts serious doubt on the veracity of the document, especially when witnesses, not declared hostile, differ over whether the seizure was made from the petitioner or his mother. 10. In this context, it would not be out of place to emphasise on the discrepancy between evidence adduced by raiding party members. First, there is doubt about presence of the lady who is supposedly mother of the petitioner at the place of seizure. Then, there is contradictory evidence of PW-3, who was not declared hostile, that seizure of the offending meat was affected from the mother of the petitioner and not from the petitioner. This contradiction goes roots of the matter. 11. First, there is doubt about presence of the lady who is supposedly mother of the petitioner at the place of seizure. Then, there is contradictory evidence of PW-3, who was not declared hostile, that seizure of the offending meat was affected from the mother of the petitioner and not from the petitioner. This contradiction goes roots of the matter. 11. The stricter is the law, the more stringent should be the requirement to comply with all the formalities in proving an offence. 12. Before a presumption like the one under section 57 of the said Act can be brought into operation, one has to satisfy the requirements for invoking such presumption. In the present case, it is doubtful whether the offending meat was in the possession of the petitioner or his mother. There are numerous other contradictions in the prosecution case, especially touching upon seizure of the meat. Therefore, the prosecution cannot be permitted to invoke section 57 of the said Act to procure a conviction in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 13. The contention that PW-1 did not know Bengali and yet, had the statement recorded in Bengali is of hardly consequence in view of the deposition in chief that the statement was recorded by others under his aegis. 14. There are two purported statements of the accused made before the concerned authorities and recorded in presence of several witnesses where he allegedly confessed about his guilt. Quite significantly, in none of these statements PW-4, the only real independent witness, had appended his signature. Courts would be cautious to base a conviction on such statements made to persons exercising authority over the accused at their relevant point, especially if it remains the sole basis for conviction. After all, an Investigating Officer under this Act is also entrusted with a number of powers exercised by a police officer during investigation. A reference may be made to Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2020 SC 5592 . 15. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the prosecution could not prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the petitioner is entitled to benefit of doubt. 16. In view of the above, the impugned orders of conviction and sentence of the Trial Court, as affirmed by the Appellate Court, is quashed and set aside, so far as the present petitioner is concerned. 17. 16. In view of the above, the impugned orders of conviction and sentence of the Trial Court, as affirmed by the Appellate Court, is quashed and set aside, so far as the present petitioner is concerned. 17. If the petitioner is in custody in respect of the instant case, he shall be released forthwith. 18. With these observations, the criminal revision is allowed. 19. Let the trial court records be sent down immediately along with copy of this judgment by special messenger. 20. Urgent Photostat certified copy of the judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all legal formalities. 21. All the parties to act on the basis of the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Hon’ble Court.