- (1.) THIS is an application in revision by Prem Kumar who has been convicted under section 26 of the Rajasthan Forest Act read with Rule 2 of the Rajasthan Forest (Produce Transit) Rules and has been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100/ by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bundi. His appeal before the learned Additional sessions Judge, Bundi also failed.
(2.) THE two courts have concurrently found on the evidence of Motilal (P. W. 1), insafali (P. W. 2), Mathura (P. W. 3) and Gafurali (P. W. 4) that on the night of 1st november, 1958, some Bhils were cutting trees from the reserved forest of shikarganj and were loading them in truck No. RJR 175 while the petitioner was present there armed with a gun. After loading the truck the forest produce was being taken away when they were stopped by the employees of the forest department who had placed stones on the way in order to block the further movement of the truck. The petitioner on seeing the employees of the forest department, jumped out of the truck and ran away leaving behind his gun in the truck. This is a finding of fact and there is sufficient evidence in support of It. The petitioner has challenged the correctness of this finding but it is not open to him to do so in this revision.
(3.) THE only contentions which deserve consideration are : 1. that the prosecution has failed to prove that the place from where the trees are said to have been cut, was within the area of the reserved forest. 2. that the trial in the case was vitiated for the reason that on 7th and 28th October, 1958, Surajprakash Range Officer who was the complainant in the case was not present in the court and the learned magistrate instead of acquitting the accused and without adjourning the case or dispensing with the presence of the complainant recorded the evidence of the prosecution and defence witnesses. It is urged that the procedure followed by the learned Magistrate was contrary to the provisions of Section 247 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In support of this contention learned counsel relied upon Arjandas Tulsidas v. G. K. Bhagat,, AIR 1954 Ajmer 31 (2) Daulat Ram Bala Ram v. Ram Kishan air 1958 Punj 317 L S. Patil v. Dundappa Malkajappa, AIR 1960 Mys 39 and State v. Reva Chand, AIR 1961 All 352. ;