GOVINDA REDDI Vs. EMPEROR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case the accused has been convicted of an offence under rules 8 and 15 framed under Section 26, Madras Forest Act, V of 1882. The charge runs in these terms: "You are charged with having committed an offence under rules 8 and 15, framed under Section 26 of Act V. of 1882, in having got the accused Nos, 3 to 6 to cut without license a Neradu tree worth about Rs. 60 in the Vanka Poramboke Survey No. 162 of Noulakallu village about the month of April 1911."

(2.) Although the charge mentions Rule 8, it does not state clearly that the Vanka Poramboke Survery No. 162, in which the Neradu tree is said to have stood, was a reserved forest, or reserved land . And, apparently, there is no evidence on record to show that the place in question was reserved land, Without such evidence, a conviction under Rule 8 could not be supported.

(3.) The learned Public Prosecutor contends that, on the facts found, the accused would be guilty of an offence under Rule 9.