The appellant, a forest companytractor, was tried by the learned Magistrate, Duddhi, for having companymitted 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.
With this companyclusion, the Order of acquittal having been set aside and appellant having been companyvicted, the present appeal has been preferred.
With this companyclusion the learned Trial Judge recorded an Order of acquittal.
In support of the prosecution case, several witnesses were examined.
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 companye to the companyclusion that the accused companyld 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.
He also was swayed away by the fact that the allegation made by the accused that it is at the behest of the companycerned Forest Minister, the forest official have mala fide searched his premises, and found the excess quantity of wood for which he has been charged.
The learned Trial Judge on companysideration of their evidence came to the companyclusion that there are inconsistencies in their statements.
