PATESHWARI AND OTHERS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision on behalf of nine persons who have been convicted under Sec. 15 of the U.P. Private Forests Act and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50 each Originally 11 persons were convicted but on appeal two of them were acquitted and the remaining nine have come up to this Court in Revision.

(2.) A notification was issued by the Government under Sec. 3 Sub -clause (3) of the U.P. Forests Act which is in very cryptic terms since it merely says. "The Governor is pleased to declare all forest lands in the U.P., other than those mentioned in Sec. 2 of the said Act to be forests for the purpose of the said Act." It is left to every person to determine for himself whether any land is forest or not. No description or boundaries of any forest land is given. In the present case the finding of the trial Court is that the trees had already been felled and the land had been dug up to a certain extent six or seven years back. The Court, however, proceeds to hold that, that did not change the character of the forest. Obviously if there were no trees standing or if there were only sparsely scattered trees, the area could not be called forest within the meaning of the notification unless it had been described by boundaries or by numbers or by reference to the village. This was not done and consequently all the trees having been felled before the Act came into force the land ceased to be forest and the notification Ex. 17 would not apply to it.

(3.) It appears that all that the accused persons did was to remove the undergrowth such as Karaunda, Dudhi and the roots which still continued to exist. Since they were not doing this in respect of forest land, there was nothing in law to make them guilty of the offence under the U.P. Forests Act. The applicants, were, therefore, entitled to be acquitted and I allow their application and set aside their conviction and the sentences passed against them. The fine, if realised, will be refunded.