(1.) ON filing of complaint under Section 20 of the Land Preservation Act (to be referred as "the Act") read with Section 52 of the Indian Forest Act, by the Forester-in-charge, Harbans Lal, the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hoshiarpur, summoned Shanti Nath respondent as accused, held trial, and acquitted him vide judgment dated 21.4.1992.
(2.) THE charge against the respondent was that though permit, Ex.P1, was issued to him for extracting tapping resin from 6300 blazes in Malot Forest (at the rate of Rs. 40/- per blaze), he extracted more resin by increasing the permissible dimension of tapping and also by extracting resin out of more than 6300 blazes. This act of his, decreased the age of the trees, and accordingly, a penalty of Rs 60,015/- was imposed on him. After adjusting a sum of Rs. 22,060/- which was lying as his security with the department, towards the amount of penalty, a sum of Rs. 37,965/- still remained due from him. He was, therefore, asked to deposit this remaining amount of penalty. But, he failed to do so. Hence, a criminal complaint was filed against him in court.
(3.) IN so far as Section 52 of the Indian Forest Act, is concerned, it becomes applicable only when there is reason to believe that a forest offence has been committed in respect of any forest produce, and not otherwise. In this case, none of the witnesses had deposed before the trial Court as to what was the total number of blazes out of which resin was extracted by the respondent, or what was the increased dimension of the tappings, out of which resin was extracted by him. They (witnesses) simply stated that the respondent extracted resin out of more than the allotted number of blazes and besides, he had extracted resin by increasing the dimension of tappings. Therefore, the learned trial Court rightly held that in view of the totally vague statements of the PWs, the respondent could not be held guilty of having committed an offence under Section 52 of the Indian Forest Act.