The petitioners were convicted by the Sub Magistrate, Quilandy under sections 109 and 379 I.P.C for cutting trees and taking them away from the Government forest and their convictions were confirmed in appeal by the Sub Divisional Magistrate of Calicut.
This petition was admitted on two points; firstly, whether there was any evidence on which the conviction of the Ist accused could be based and, secondly, on the question whether a certain report made by the Deputy Tahsildar in charge of the forest in question to the Collector is privileged. On the first point, the only evidence, against the 1st accused is the admission of the second accused that he had committed the offence at the instigation of the 1st accused and the presence of the marks of the 1st accused on the trees. The admission of the 2nd accused is an exculpatory statement in so far as the 1st accused is concerned for he merely transfers the blame from his own shoulders to those of the Ist accused. Moreover his confession can only be taken into account against the 1st accused when there is other positive evidence. The presence of the 1st accused's marks on the trees show little more than that the 2nd accused was the 1st accused's agent or servant. The 1st accused's defence was that he had asked his servants to cut trees in some other place. This explanation in not inconsistent with the evidence. There was therefore no legal evidence against the 1st accused on which a conviction could be based. The conviction and sentence of the 1st accused are therefore set aside and that accused acquitted.
Section 124 of the Indian Evidence Act says:
“No public officer shall be compelled to disclose communications made to him in official confidence, when he considers that the public interest would suffer by the disclosure.”
This section leaves it to Court to consider whether the communication was of the nature covered by the section, i.e the Court has to decide whether the section can be applied. If it does the court has to exclude the document if the Public Officer concerned considers that the public interests will suffer by disclosure. The Court cannot question his decision on that point. This report from Deputy Tahsildar to the Collector was undoubtedly a confidential document. It was not intended to be revealed to the public but only to the person to whom it was addressed and to such persons to whom the Collector though fit to send it. The Collector has sent the document to the Public Prosecutor and I have perused it. There is nothing in the document which would help the accused. On the contrary it seems to have been in the accused's best interests that this document was not shown to the Court.
There is no reason why I should interfere with the conviction and sentence passed on the 2nd and 4th accused.
N.T.R