SABIR ALI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Sabir Ali sold an Imli tree in his grove No. 328, situate in village Ratnapur, Police Station Bahraich, to one Jhabboo. The latter got the tree cut and removed from the grove on the 6th of February, 1958. He did so without obtaining permission from the competent authority. According to the prosecution case, ho thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 15 (1) of the U.P. Private Forests Act which reads as follows:

(2.) The case was transferred to a Special Magistrate of the Second class for disposal. It was, subsequently, transferred to the file of T. B. Upadhaya who was at that time, a Magistrate of the Second Class. The entire prosecution evidence was recorded by him and, then, on the 12th of December, 1959, powers of a First Class Magistrate were conferred on him. The accused persons were examined by him under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the 12th of December, 1959 and by his judgment dated the 6th of January, 1960, he, as a Magistrate of the First Class and Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kaisarganj, Bahraich, convicted both the accused persons and sentenced each of them to pay a fine of rupees fifty with one month's simple imprisonment in default of payment of fine.

(3.) Two criminal appeals were filed which were later registered as criminal revisions. These revisions were transferred to the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Bahraich who, by his judgment dated the 16th of January, 1961, held that a Magistrate of the First Class had no jurisdiction to try the case. Consequently, he, made reference to this Court, recommonding that the conviction and the, sentences of the two applicants be set aside. He relied upon a decision of Beg, J., Juddu v. State, AIR 1952 All 873. In this case Beg, J., held that, by virtue of the provisions of Section 15(2) of the U. P. Private Forests Act, a Magistrate of the First Class had no Jurisdiction to try offences punishable under Section 15 (1) of the said Act. There is another case decided by the same learned Judge Harbans Singh v. State, AIR 1953 All 179 in which he took the view held by him in the earlier case.