Sushil Kumar Gupta, J. - (1.)THIS Criminal Revision is directed against the judgment dated 19/08/2002 passed in Criminal Appeal No.28/2002 whereby Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Seoni (M.P.) has upheld the judgment dated 20/02/2002 passed in Criminal Case No.780/2001 whereby the applicant/accused has been convicted under Section 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (for short 'The Act' 1972) and sentenced to undergo RI for 1 year with fine of Rs.500/ -, in default of payment of fine to undergo RI for 1 month.
(2.)THE prosecution case, in short, is that on 19/09/1992, in West Khawasa Range, the applicant/accused -Bholaram was coming on his bicycle having a bag with him. A Forest Guard, on suspicion, stopped the applicant/accused -Bholaram and on search he was found in his possession 85 (14.900 kg.) pieces of Sambhar/Chital horns in the bag. The Forest Guard seized entire pieces of horns and prepared seizure panchnama on the spot. Thereafter he informed to the Deputy Ranger who, on his turn, verified the papers of seizure, prepared the complaint and the same has filed in the Court.
The applicant/accused was charged under Section 51/52 of the Act 1972 in contravention of Section 44 of the Act 1972. The charges were read over and explained to the applicant/accused. He abjured the guilt.

(3.)THE prosecution examined as many as 4 witnesses. The applicant/accused denied all the allegations leveled against him in his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short the code 1973) and pleaded innocent and falsely implicated. The applicant/accused did not examine any witnesses in his defence. After appreciating the evidence, produced by the prosecution, trial Court found guilty to applicant/accused under Section 51 of the Act 1972 and sentenced thereto. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence he preferred Criminal Appeal No.28/2002 before the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Seoni which was also dismissed. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment, finding and sentence this revision has been preferred mainly on the grounds that neither PW -4 Rafeeque (Forest Guard) had authority to make search of the applicant/accused, nor he had any authority to seized the animal article and prosecution has failed to prove that the seized articles were really pieces of the horns of Sambhar/Chital.