EMPEROR Vs. KADARBHAI USUFALLI BOHRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal by the Government of Bombay, there are only two questions before us. The first is, whether under Section 39 of the Indian Forest Act (Act VII of 1876) and the Notification of the Government of Bombay No. 9475, dated January 5, 1925, timber or other forest produce of the kind mentioned in the schedule to the Notification, is liable to a levy of duty as prescribed in the Notification, when brought into the East Khandesh district, not directly from one of the States mentioned in the Notification (in this case the Indore State), but from Harda in the Central Provinces, to which it had been removed from that State. The second point is, whether, supposing the timber was not liable to this levy, the Range Forest Officer was acting "in the discharge of his public functions" within the meaning of Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code, BO that the obstruction offered by the accused in the case was punishable under that section. Both these questions have been discussed very fully and carefully by the learned Sessions Judge.

(2.) The first point is one of construction of the words of Section 39. This authorizes the Local Government, subject to the control of the Governor General in Council, to- levy a duty in such manner, at such places and at such rates as it may from time to time prescribe by a notification in the local official Gazette on all timber or other forest-produce- (a) which is produced in British India, and in respect of which the Government has any right; (b) which is brought from any place beyond the frontier of British India.

(3.) There is a proviso that a notification directing the levy of a duty, in the case of timber and other forest-produce brought from any place beyond the frontier of British India, which is not under the control of the Local Government, shall not be issued without the previous sanction of the Governor General in Council, This section is to be read with Section 82 of the Indian Forest Act, which gives a lien on forest produce, if the amount of any money payable to Government under the Act is not paid, and in certain other cases. If the timber now in question was timber, in respect of which a levy of the duty mentioned in the notification of the Local Government could be made, then the Range Forest Officer had power to take possession of such timber, until the amount due was paid, under the provisions of Section 82. Two opposing constructions are put before us. The Government Pleader argues that Clause (b) of Section 39 contains nothing to restrict its general language, such as words saying the timber must be brought directly from a place outside British India, and that timber which had been produced in the Indore State and brought therefrom to any place in British India would still be liable to the duty, as soon as it was brought into East Khandesh, On the other hand, Mr. Jayakar for the accused contends that it would be absurd to construe this clause in such a wide way, without regard to the possibility of there being a number of intermediaries before the timber reaches a dealer in Khandesh, and that the clause should be strictly limited to the case where the timber or other forest-produce is actually brought by the person alleged to be liable to the duty from the State into East or West Khandesh.