2 was that he felled the tree and removed it.
The learned Additional Sessions Judge made a reference to the High Court recommending that the trial before the Magistrate, First Class be quashed as he had numberjurisdiction to try the offence.
The learned Judges differed amongst themselves Mr. Justice Nigam was of the view that the trial was valid but Mr. Justice Singh did number agree with him.
Thereafter he pronounced judgment in the case and finding respondents guilty he sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs.
As a result, the companyviction and sentence passed on the respondents were set aside.
The companyplaint was transferred from one Magistrate to another till it came on the file of Mr. T. B. Upadhaya who was a Magistrate of the Second Class.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated March 12,1962 of the Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench at Lucknow in Criminal Reference No.
After Mr. Upadhaya had re companyded all the evidence and examined the two respondents the powers of Magistrate, First Class were companyferred on him.
The case was, however, certified by the High Court as fit for appeal and the present appeal has been filed.
The case was then placed before Mr. Justice Verma who agreed with Mr. Justice Singh.
501 each or to, undergo simple imprisonment for one month.
2 for the purpose of felling and removing it without obtaining permission from the companypetent authority and that against respondent No.
193 of 1962.
The respondent did number appear.
P. Rana, Atiqur Rehman and C. P. Lal, for the appellant.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.
The respondents filed an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, Bahraich which was later companyverted into a revision.
2 Mulla, J. was of the opinion that the trial was proper, but as these rulings stood in his way, he made a reference of the case to a larger Bench.
The charge against the first respondent was that he sold one tamarind tree to respondent No.
21 of 1961.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by HIDAYATULLAH, J. This is an appeal by certificate granted by the High Court of Allahabad Lucknow Bench against its order dated March 12, 1962 quashing the trial of the respondents for an offence under s. 15 1 of the Uttar Pradesh Private Forests Act VI of 1949 .
March 24, 1964.
This trial company menced on February 11, 1959 on a companyplaint by the District Magistrate Bahraich.
This reference was heard by Mulla, J. who did number agree with the opinion of Beg, J. In Jaddu and others v. State, 1 on which the Additional Sessions Judge had relied.
Beg, J. had taken the same view in a subsequent case also Harbans Singh and others v. State.
The case was heard by a Division Bench companysisting of B. N. Nigam and S. D. Singh, JJ.
