CHANDA Vs. RAGHUNATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision against an order of the S.D.O.Tonk,dated 9-4-55 in a case under sec. 6 of the Rajasthan Removal of Trees (Regulation) Ordinance, 1949.

(2.) WE have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have gone through the record as well. WE feel impelled to observed that the learned S.D.O appears to have taken no paints to keep himself abreast of the decisions of the Board touching on the point WE would invite his attention to observations of the Board reported in Babulal vs. Mangat,1955 RLW72, (R.S.) 1955 RRD 38. It was pointed out there that "the elementary requirement of a judicial trial is that the trial court should base its findings on evidence recorded by it and the person, charged against should be afforded an opportunity to put up his plea and substantiate the same. This clearly means that first of all the evidence of the parties should be brought on record by the trial court. Thereafter it should be considered with a view to determine the commission of the alleged offence or otherwise and the complicity of the persons involved in it. This duty of according and considering the evidence cannot be delegated to any subordinate officer. If the Tehsildar had recorded evidence or held a preliminary enquiry in the case, the S.D.O. should have ignored it and he was duty bond to hold a fresh enquiry himself. On the basis of that enquiry alone he should have arrived at his own findings independently of those reported to him by the Tehsildar......" The learned S.D.O. in this case contended himself with merely accepting the recommendation of the Tehsildar. The learned Government Advocate has frankly conceded his inability to support the decision of the lower court. WE would, therefore, allow this revision, set aside the order of the lower court and remand the case back to the S.D.O. concerned with the direction that it be tried and decided fresh in the light of the observations made above.