GOVIND NARAYAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision application against an order of the Assistant Collector, Sawai Madhopur, dated 20.8.54 in a case under sec. 6 of the Rajasthan Removal of Trees (Regulation) Ordinance, 1949.

(2.) WE have heard the parties and have examined the record as well. WE feel constrained to observe that the manner in which trial was conducted by the lower court betrays a colossal ignorance of the elementy principles of Law. Put briefly the facts of the case are that the village Patwari concerned put up a report before the Tehsildar, Malarna, alleging that Govinda applicant had cut a green tree. The tehsildar after recording the Statement of the patel of the village forwarded the papers to the Assistant Collector, Sawai Madhopur who took steps to secure the attendance of the persons concerned. The patwari did not appear before the Assistant Collector. The applicant however presented himself on 25.6.54. The Assistant Collector, examined the applicant who denied the allegations and alleged that the tree in question was still standing on the spot. The learned Assistant Collector without recording any evidence which could legally be made the basis of conviction decided the case and imposed a fine of Rs. 25/-on the applicant. The lower court has observed in its judgment that as the applicant had some knowledge of the whereabouts of the tree he should be deemed to have committed the offence. WE confess our inability to appreciate the logical process involved in arriving at this inference. The mere fact that the applicant had knowledge of the location of the tree cannot amount to an admission of offence of cutting the same. This, in logic, is known as the fallacy of the petition principle i.e. assuming a fact which has to be proved by evidence. The first principle of a judicial trial is that the evidence for the parties should be recorded and considered by a court before coming to a decision. The procedure adopted by the learned Assistant Collector has no sanction in the eye of law and it is extremely arbitrary and irregular. WE would, therefore, allow this revision, set aside the order of lower court and remand the case to the S.D.O., Sawai Madhopur with the direction that he should hear and determine it afresh in accordance with law.