EMPEROR Vs. SANTOKI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference by the Sessions Judge, Jubbulpore, recommending that the conviction of Santoki by a Magistrate First Glass, Mandla, under Section 26(d), Forest Act, be quashed as it was in conflict with the law propounded by this Court in Saiyyad Rahim v. Emperor [1915] 11 N.L.R. 76.

(2.) THE facts are that eight buffaloes belonging to the accused were found grazing in the Government forest block No. 18 in charge of one lad named Shankar. It is established by the evidence of Chhiddi (D.W. 2) that the accused had employed Shankar's father and not Shankar as grazier and it is not proved that the accused had, in any way authorized directly or indirectly Shankar to graze his cattle in the forest block No. 18. The conviction of the accused under these circumstances was, therefore, clearly illegal.

(3.) THE statement of the accused as recorded by the Magistrate is as under: The eight buffaloes were covered by a license hence my grazior may or may not have grazed them in Government forest. I have no personal knowledge of this.