- (1.) THIS application in revised against an order of the learned Additional Commissioner, Jodhpur, dated 15.3.56 arises under the following circumstances.
(2.) THE Tehsildar, Deedwana filed a complaint under sec. 6 of the Rajasthan Removal of Trees (Regulation) Act, against the applicant in the court of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Deedwana, alleging that the applicant had despatched by rail 13 wagons of green fuel weighing 2860 mds. and that there were about 700 mds. of green fuel still lying in his 'Tal'. THE S.D.O., after making the necessary enquiry, ordered the confiscation of the 700 mds. of green fuel and imposed a fine of Rs. 100/- on the applicant. In appeal this order was upheld by the lower appellate court. Against this the applicant has filed this revision. We have heard the learned counsel who appeared on behalf of the applicant as well as the Government Advocate. The point at issue is whether the applicant can be punished under sec. 6 of the said Act which read as below: - Whoever (1) removes or causes to be removed any tree or trees in contravention of any provisions of this Act or of any rule ; or (2) contravenes any of the terms, conditions and restrictions of a licence issued under sec. 5; or (3) without having any authority under or in pursuance of any provision of this Act or of any rule thereunder, removed or causes to be removed any trees; or (4) aids in or abets at any such removal or connives at the removal of the free or trees in contravention as aforesaid, shall be punishable by the S. D. O.........with fine which may extend to Rs. 100/- one hundred rupees) for every tree that has been removed.........and the timber of the trees removed if any, shall in every case be forfeited to the Government. The learned counsel for the applicant argued that in the present case, it has not been proved that the applicant in any way removed or caused to remove tree or trees or that he had in any way aided in or abated or connived at the removal of the tree in contravention of the aforesaid provisions of law or any other section of the Act. It was pointed out that the Tehsildar on whose complaint the case was registered against the applicant at first stated in his examination in chief that the applicant had purchased and sold the timber of the trees cut unauthorised and without any licence. But in his cross-examination, he admitted that he did not know whether the applicant cut and caused to be cut or removed any of these trees, not did the witness know as to by whom and wherefrom the fuel wood was brought. The other witnesses viz. the Naib-Tehsildar, the Revenue Inspector and the village Patwari also could not state as to how the applicant was connected with the offence with which he was charged. It was urged that the only evidence against the applicant is that he was found in possession of a large quantity of fuel wood which is not an offence under the Act. The applicant denied the allegations made against him and urged that he purchases the fuel from any body who brings it for sale to him. The learned counsel urged that the law as it is does not contemplate the inflicting of any punishment on a person unless it is found that he contravened the provisions of sec. 6 or any other section of the Act. The learned Government Advocate, however, emphasised that it was a case of abetment of or connivance on the part of the applicant at any such removal or contravention. We have read the evidence on record and find that there is nothing in the statements of the witnesses to show that the applicant had either removed or caused to be removed any of the trees or that he had been aiding, abetting or conniving at the cutting of the trees by persons, who had no authority to do so. The burden of proof as a rule lies on the prosecution to prove the essential ingredients of the offence with which the applicant was charged. There is no provision in the Act or the Rajasthan Tenancy Act under which in the absence of any such proof the applicant was to account for the trees found in his possession. We, therefore, hold that the applicant has not committed any act which may be punishable under sec. 6 or any other section of the said Act or the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. Both the courts, in our opinion, misap-preciated the evidence and also misinterpreted the law on the subject and arrived at a decision which can hardly be supported. Accordingly, we set aside the orders of the lower courts and accept this revisional The fine if recovered shall be remitted to him and the green fuel if taken possession of be restored to the applicant.;