T. Gurumurty Patro vs Emperor

Das, J.—The petitioner has been found guilty of contravening the rules made u/s 26(c), Madras Forest Act, and he has been sentenced to a fine of Rs. 50 only. The case against the petitioner was that on 17th. August 1948, he was removing 8 cart-loads of mahua flowers without a permit from the Balliguda division, where the Madras Forest Act is in force. The defence of the petitioner was that he had purchased the 8 cartload of mahua flowers from one Basudeo Pradhan, who had a permit for the Khondmals area, in which area the Madras Forest Act did not apply and no permit was necessary for removing forest produce. The petitioner examined certain witnesses in support of his defence.

The Court of appeal below has proceeded on the assumption that it was for the petitioner to prove his innocence. The Court of appeal below states that "it is the duty of the accused to prove that the commodity comes from an area in which a permit for transportation is not necessary." In this view, the Court of appeal below is certainly wrong. The onus in a criminal case is always on the prosecution, and it was for the prosecution to prove that the petitioner had committed the offence with which he was charged.

The petitioner had given satisfactory evidence in support of his contention that he had purchased mahua flowers from an area in which no permit for transportation was necessary. The trial Court appears to have accepted that contention of the petitioner, but proceeded on the footing that as soon as the forest produce was brought in the Balliguda division, a permit was necessary by virtue of the rules made under the Madras Forest Act. The trial Court is clearly wrong in this respect. If no permit was necessary for removing mahua flowers plucked from the Khondmals area, the petitioner cannot be found guilty merely because he had brought the mahua flowers into an area, where the Madras Forest Act is in force. The real question is from which area mahua flowers were plucked.

As I have stated above, the petitioner has given good evidence to 3how that the mahua flowers have been acquired in an area, where the Madras Forest Act did not apply, and where the removal of forest produce did not require any special permit. In my opinion, the petitioner is clearly entitled to an acquittal.

The result, therefore, is that the application is allowed, and the conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner are set aside. The fine, if paid, should be refunded to the petitioner. It is needless to say that the order of confiscation is also set aside, inasmuch as the petitioner has committed no offence under the Madras Forest Act.