- (1.) THIS is a revision which has been wrongly described as an appeal, against an order of the S. D. O. Jaitaran, dated 22. 2. 1954 in a case under sec. 6 of the Rajasthan Removal of Trees (Regulation) Ordinance, 1949.
(2.) THE opposite party did not put in appearance despite notice. THE Government Advocate was, however, allowed to represent the opposite party. On 3. 10. 1952 the opposite party Khinwa and Pema lodged a report with the S. D. O. Jaitaran stating therein that thikanawala had allowed 13 green trees to be cut from the land which had been under their cultivation for the last 14 years. Notice were issued against Pemraj and Lalsingh employees of the Thikana Nimbera. How and on what basis these names were ascertained by the trial, court does not appear from the record. Pemraj and Lalsingh in their written statement denied having cut any green trees. After holding an enquiry into the matter the trial court came to the conclusion that 14 green trees were cut and hence a fine of Rs. 40/-per tree (total amount of Rs. 520/-) was imposed upon the Kamdar Thikana Nimbera. Ft is unfortunate that the name of the Kamdar was not specified in judgment and it is so wonder, therefore, that proceedings for realisation of this fine are alleged to have been started against the Thakur of the Thikana himself, on whose behalf this revision has been filed before us. Ordinarily we would have directed a fresh enquiry in the case as the procedure adopted by the trial court is highly irregular. But looking to the nature of the prosecution evidence examined therein, we are of the opinion that except continuing harassment of the applicant unnecessarily for sometime more no useful purpose is likely to be served thereby. The first point to be determined in the case is as to whether the trees in question were dried up useless ones or living green trees. A tree is obviously a living organism which would continue to grow under normal conditions. But if it has dried up to an extent as would mean a complete stoppage of its further growth insistence on its preservation is hardly likely to be of any advantage. The Ordinance is intended to regulate the removal of trees as a planned conserva not of forest wealth is useful in a number of ways e. g. increase of rain fall check upon soil erosion etc. A dry log of wood even if it is standing attached to the earth can hardly be of any use in the context. On the other hand it would be an obstacle in agriculture operations as long as it is not taken out of the soil. The offence laid down in sec. 6 of the Ordinance, therefore, cannot be deemed to have been committed if the socalled tree in question is a dried up standing piece of wood having all-its nerves and arteries completely destroyed. Examining the case with this criterion we find that the prosecution evidence consists of the solitary statement of the informer himself who according to his own showing came forward with his allegation two or three months after the alleged occurrence. No explanation whatsoever has been offered for this delay. If the informer had come out at the right moment the best evidence i. e. the tress itself would have been available and this fact would have gone a great way in resolving the controversy clearly. On behalf of the prosecution no evidence has been led to show that the Kamdar Thikana was responsible for the cutting of the trees by selling them to the person who removed them actually. On behalf of the defence the person who actually cut down trees have been examined. They have stated that the trees were dried up long ago with the result that when they were cut down by them they were nothing but dead logs of wood. The onus of proving the trees to be green or living rested upon the prosecution and it is clear that it has failed to discharge the same. No purpose would be served, therefore, by remanding the case for a further enquiry. The record as it is does not disclose the commis-sion of an offence under sec. 6 of the Ordinance. We would, therefore, allow this revision set aside the order of the lower court and directed that the Kamdar Thikana Nimbeda be acquitted of the offence charged with. The fine, if paid, be refunded. .;