1. The appellant, a forest contractor, was tried by the learned Magistrate, Duddhi, for having committed offence under Section 5 read with Section 25 and Section 41 read with Section 42 of the Indian Forest Act and Indian Forest Conservation Act as well as under the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Protection of Trees in Rural and Hilly Areas Act, 1976 (U.P. Act 5 of 76) on the allegation that his depot on being searched by the Forest Officer was found to have in excess quantity of Khair wood than what was permitted to him under different permits. In support of the prosecution case, several witnesses were examined. The learned Trial Judge on consideration of their evidence came to the conclusion that there are inconsistencies in their statements. He also was swayed away by the fact that the allegation made by the accused that it is at the behest of the concerned Forest Minister, the forest official have mala fide searched his premises, and found the excess quantity of wood for which he has been charged. With this conclusion the learned Trial Judge recorded an Order of acquittal. On an appeal being carried, the High Court re appreciates the evidence adduced in the case. From the documents produced by the accused himself, namely, the depot register, the High Court has come to the conclusion that the accused could produce permit in respect of Khair wood to the extent of 196 cubic meters and the documents further revealed that by the date of search he had already sold 197 cubic meters of Khair wood. Therefore, for the balance amount of Khair wood, that was found in the possession of the accused, namely, 113 cubic meters, no explanation could be offered, and as such it must be held that he has contravened the relevant provisions of the Indian Forest Act as well as the U.P. Act for which he stood charged. The High Court also re-appreciated the evidence of PWs. 1 to 4 and recorded a finding that their evidence corroborates the documentary evidence, as adduced in the case. With this conclusion, the Order of acquittal having been set aside and appellant having been convicted, the present appeal has been preferred.
2. Mr. Bahuguna, the learned senior Counsel appearing for the appellant seriously contends that the High Court has wholly erred in law in not looking to the several documents produced before the Magistrate in course of the proceedings, namely, the several permits as well as the transit permits, and on such permits being looked at, the conclusion of the High Court must be held to be unsustainable in law in respect of the same. The transit permits, which were produced before the Magistrate, and which have been appended to the record of the Court, we have been taken through the same. We do not find any substance in the aforesaid submission of the learned Counsel, inasmuch as the transit permits would not be the relevant document for consideration. If the register produced by the accused, which was available at the depot, indicates the total quantity of Khair wood he had obtained on purchase as well as the total quantity of Khair wood he has sold by the date, the search took place, then obviously for the balance quantity of Khair wood to the extent of 113 cubic meters, no explanation has been offered by the accused as to where from it came. In such situation, the conclusion arrived at by the High Court cannot be found fault with. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity with the conviction and sentence recorded by the High Court in setting aside an Order of acquittal. On the other hand, the High Court itself has taken a lenient view of the matter by requiring the accused to pay some fine on the ground that he was a heart patient.
3. The appeal is dismissed.