A.A. Halbe, J.
1. This application raises an important question as to whether the statements recorded by the Range Forest Officer of the accused, during the investigation of a forest offence under the Indian Forests Act, 1927, are hit by section 25 or 30 of the Evidence Act. The petitioner is involved in an offence under section 52 of the Indian Forest Act read with Rule 64 of the G.D.D. Forest Rules, 1964 for possessing illegally forest timber. This transaction involved as many as nine persons and the petitioner is designated as accused No. 1 and rest of them are accused Nos. 2 to 9.
2. To the facts, reference may be made later. The Range Forest Officer, soon after seizure of the illegally cut wood, recorded the statements of those accused and it was disclosed from those statements that all the accused were involved in cutting, removing and possessing the illegally cut wood. The learned Magistrate, in Criminal Case No. 22/N/1992, on an elaborate consideration, found that the present petitioner and accused Nos. 8 and 9 in the original complaint had to be discharged because except their statements and the statements of other accused, there was no other independent evidence to involve them in the forest offence. The learned Magistrate further observed that the statements of other accused, implicating the present petitioner, were not admissible as they were hit under section 30 of the Evidence Act. It was further observed that those statements are in the nature of confession and the same are hit under section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. Accordingly, the learned Magistrate was pleased to discharge the present petitioner by his order dated 15th September, 1992.
3. The State, having been aggrieved by this discharge of the petitioner, preferred Criminal Revision No. 37 of 1992 and Criminal Appeal No. 2 of 1992 under section 59(A) of the Indian Forest Act. The learned Sessions Judge, Panaji, in the above proceedings found that the approach of the learned Magistrate was erroneous; that it was incorrect in law to say that the statements of the accused were not admissible because the Range Forest Officer is not a police officer and the statements were, therefore, statements not amounting to confession and that the statements could be read against all the accused inter-se. He was, therefore, pleased to quash that order of discharge and was pleased to direct the Magistrate to proceed with the matter in the light of the observations in his order dated 9th June, 1993.
4. The petitioner, who is the accused, has preferred this revision and the main thrust of argument on behalf of the petitioner is that except the statements made by the petitioner and other accused before the Range Forest Officer there was no other evidence and in that light, the order of discharge was wholly warranted and that the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge should be quashed.
5. At the outset, it will have to be stated that the competency of the Range Forest Officer to record the statements has not been disputed. However, this order shall not preclude the petitioner to raise that question at an appropriate stage. All that may be observed is that the same has not been asked to be considered by the Court.
6. The learned advocate for the petitioner has drawn my attention to section 72 of the Indian Forests Act which provides that :---
'Section 72 :---State Government may invest Forest Officers with certain powers :---
(1) The State Government may invest any Forest Officer with all or any of the following powers, that is to say---
(a) power to enter upon any land and to survey, demarcate and make a map of the same;
(b) the power of a Civil Court to compel the attendance of witnesses and the production of documents and material objects;
(c) power to issue a search warrant under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (V of 1898); or
(d) power to held an inquiry into forest offences and, in the course of such inquiry, to receive and record evidence.
(2) Any evidence recorded under Clause (d) of sub-section (1) shall be admissible in any subsequent trial before a Magistrate provided that it has been taken in the presence of the accused person.'
It is urged that this provision empowers the Range Forest Officer to carry out the search under the Code of Criminal Procedure. In sub-section (2) of section 72, it is laid down that the evidence recorded by the Forest Officer shall be admissible in any subsequent trial before the Magistrate provided that it has been taken in presence of the accused persons. According to him, this provision almost empowers the Range Forest Officer to discharge the Rule of the police officer. He has further relied on sections 64 and 65 of the Forests Act., which enable the Forest Officer to arrest the person without warrant and also to release the person involved in the forest offence on bond.
7. The forest offences are punishable under sections 33 and 26 of the Forest Act. Section 33 relates to reserved forests and offence committed therein whereas section 26 deals generally with the offences for falling trees, trespassing in the forest land, putting quarries of stones etc. Basing his arguments on this provision, the learned advocate has contended that this provision clearly relates to the duties performed by the police station officer and hence the statements are hit by the above provisions of the Indian Evidence Act.
8. The learned P.P., on the other hand, has contended that so long as the Forest Officer is not empowered to file the charge sheet or that so long as he cannot investigate as required under the Code of Criminal Procedure, the question of the said officer being branded as a police officer can not be sustained.
9. The learned P.P. has relied upon the observations of the Supreme Court in : 1966CriLJ1353 in the case of Baduka Joti Svant v. The State of Mysore and Attorney General of India. The provisions of section 21 of the Central Excise and Salt Act were referred to and the Court has observed that the statements made by an accused person to the Deputy Superintendent of Customs and Excise would not be hit by section 25 of the Evidence Act. It was held that the officers were not empowered to file charge sheet under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and hence ex-facie, the above provision of section 21 cannot be read as the customs officers being police officers. Section 21 empowers the Central Excise Officer to send the person arrested to a Magistrate and, therefore by virtue of that authority, he can proceed to enquire into the charges. He was entitled to exercise the same powers as are conferred on the officer in-charge of the police station. Inspite of this, it was observed that those officers were not the police officers.
10. While referring to section 21, the Court was pleased to compare the provisions of this section with the provisions of section 70(3) of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act. Under the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act, it was clearly provided that the Central Excise Officer shall be deemed to be an officer in-charge of the police station and the area under his charge shall be deemed to be a police station. In that background, the Excise Officer was deemed to be the police officer. The Court, however, held that section 21 of the Centre Excise and Salt Act, 1944 could not be equated with the Bihar and Orissa Act and, therefore, the Excise Officer could not be deemed to be the police officer.
11. Now turning to the facts of this case, it would be found that in the complaint of the Forest Officer dated 22-6-1992, the Forest Officer, during the course of petrolling on 12-9-1991, found that Sissum trees were cut from Kadval reserved forest. There were two pits found erected for converting the logs of sissum trees which were sawn and part of the sawn material was transported from the site. The house of accused No. 3 Pandurang Kadvalkar was searched and one gun and one notebook bearing the details of the forest produce was found written therein and the names of accused Nos. 3 to 6 were entered in that notebook.
12. During the enquiry, it was found that some material was transferred to Velguam and part of which, was transferred to Mapusa and given to accused No. 1 who, in turn gave it to accused No. 9. The forest authorities seized 0.529 m3 of sissum wood from the residence of accused No. 9 and the accused No. 9 in his statement dated 14-9-1992, stated that accused No. 1 had given that material to him. The material found with accused No. 9 tallied with the Sissum wood cut from the above forest. Accused No. 1 took the Forest Officer to the house of accused No. 9 and confirmed that he had delivered that wood for sawning. Some wood was seized from accused No. 7.
13. The Range Forest Officer has clearly stated that these were the statements made by the respective accused persons, including the petitioner and hence there was prima facie offence established against the petitioner. It must also be observed that the statements made by the accused are not confessions under section 25 of the Evidence Act. The same can be read as the statements against the co-accused. It is only the confession under section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act which can not be read against the co-accused but such is not the situation in this case because the statements before the Range Forest Officer are not the statements recorded under section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act as the Range Forest Officer is not a police officer. In that light of the matter, it will have to be stated that this application has to be dismissed.
14. Criminal Miscellaneous Application is dismissed.