P (PLP)

Kh. Muhammad Sharif, Assistant Advocate‑General, for Respondent. ORDER.‑A complaint was filed by the Forest Ranger, Mirpur, on the 6th October, 1948, against six persons, namely,' Atta Muhammad, Ghulam Muhammad, Boota, Fazal Elahi, Karam Elahi and Said Muhammad residents of Matta Jagir, tehsil Mirpur under section 6 of the Forest Act. It was put down in the complaint that it 'was filed after obtaining sanction of the Divisional Forest‑ Officer. The charge brought against the accused was that they had broken up land within the limits of the demarcated forest without obtaining permission or sanction of any competent authority. Some witnesses were produced by the complainant in support of the story against the accused and the Sub‑Judge, Magistrate 1st Class, Mirpur convicted the accused under section 6 of the Forest Act and sentenced them to Rs. 10 fine each. An application for revision against t this order was filed in the Court of the Sessions Judge, Mirpur. The learned Sessions judge has referred the case to this Court on two grounds:‑

(1) That the statement of all the accused excepting one was taken down jointly which is against the provisions of the Law as it obtains in the Azad Kashmir Territory'; (2) The patwari, who had gone to the spat, measured the land and prepared the plan was rot produced before the Magistrate. Instead another patwari who took over charge from the former Patwari was produced in Court, although he was, not cognizant of the facts concerning the situation of the land as well as of its having been broken up. The plan prepared by the former patwari was not proved in accordance with law. Both these grounds mentioned by the learned Sessions judge in his order of reference are very sound and there does not appear any reason why the order of the trial Magistrate should not be set aside and the case remanded for fresh trial. I would like to mention here that‑in the complaint, as well as in the statement made before the Magistrate by the complainant it was mentioned that the permission of the Divisional Forest. Officer was obtained previous to the institution of the complaint in Court. I would advise the Court to give a finding on the point as to whether it was essential for the prosecution to obtain sanction of the Divisional Forest Officer previous to the launching of the complaint in Court. If the trial Court finds that such sanction was necessary according to the rules in force then as that sanction had not been produced in Court, whether the case can be proceeded with further and a fresh opportunity should be given to the complainant to produce that sanction. It should also in that case be seen whether the sanction was properly worded as required by law in analogous cases. The order of the trial Magistrate is set aside as he did not act in accordance with the provisions of law in recording jointly the statements of all the‑accused excepting one. The trial cannot be considered but as vitiated. The order of the trial Court is, therefore, set aside and the case is remanded for a fresh trial in accordance with the directions as given above. A. H.