(1.) The accused were charged under Section 379, Penal Code, for having cut and removed branches of an avenue tree in Nandi Daddabalapur high-road; they were caught red-handed and produced along with the property before the Police of Daddaballapur. After trial, the learned Magistrate found both A. 1 and A.2 guilty of the offence and fined them Rs. 40 and Rs. 5 respectively, and the accused have preferred this revision petition against their convictions.
(2.) On a perusal of the evidence there is little doubt that the tree in question is the avenue tree on the road side which is the property of the Government, and that the accused have removed the branches without the permission of the authorities concerned. The facts found by the lower Court are not disputed before this Court.
(3.) Sri B. Venkatesha Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioners, urged that the acts complained of amount to an offence under the Special Act, viz. Section 43, Land Revenue Code. Under Section 44 of the said Act provision is made for recovering the value of the tree removed as if it were in arrear of land revenue and also to levy a fine. These provisions of the Land Revenue Code, it is urged, do exclude the liability of the petitioners under the ordinary law, the Indian Penal Code. Reliance is placed on the decision reported in Mohan Lal v. Emperor, A. I. R. (17) 1930 Oudh 497: (32 Cr. L. J. 104) wherein it has been held that a punishment under the Penal Code for abetment of an act which is an offence under the Salt Act and not an offence under the Penal Code is illegal for the reason that Salt Act prescribes specific punishment for the abetment of such an offence. This decision is not applicable to the circumstances of the present case. It is not denied that the act complained of forms a separate offence under the general law, the Penal Code; and these Acts do not conflict with each other. Section 26, General Clauses Act, makes ft provision as to offences punishable under two or more enactments thus :