JUDGMENT : Bhawani Singh, J. 1. This Revision Petition arises out of the judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 331 of 1984/130 of 1985 decided by the Addl. Sessions Judge (I) Kangra, on 3-12-1985. By this judgment, the conviction of the Petitioner u/s 418 I.P.C. has been upheld whereas his conviction u/s 42 of the Indian Forest Act has been set aside. The jail sentence has been set aside and instead a fine of Rs. 500/- has been imposed. The trial court had convicted the Petitioner under both the provisions and had sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months u/s 418 IPC and two months u/s 42 of the Indian Forest Act. Still the Petitioner has a grievance against the impugned judgment and petitions that he may be acquitted of the offence altogether. 2. The brief facts of this case are that the Petitioner had transported 8 quintals of Katha under a valid permit from village Bhugna to Amritsar. It was to be exported through Kandwal Check-post on or before 15-5-1982. The Petitioner was also to pay tax to the extent of Rs. 1,200/- at this check-post. It is alleged that with a view to evade the tax, the Petitioner adopted Anr. route. By this way, the Petitioner violated the provisions of Himachal Pradesh Forest Produce Transit (Land Routes) Rules, 1978, the violation of which has been made punishable u/s 42 of the Indian Forest Act. Secondly, it is stated that the Petitioner cheated the Department of Excise and Taxation by adopting an escape route in order to evade payment of tax and thus violated the provisions of H.P. Taxation (On Certain Goods Carried by Road) Act, 1976, which is punishable u/s 11 thereof. It has also been alleged that the Petitioner had cheated the Department and thus committed an offence u/s 418 of the I.P.C. 3. The trial Court convicted and sentenced the Petitioner for both the offences. The Appellate Court set aside the conviction u/s 42 of the Indian Forest Act but maintained the. Same under the provisions of the H.P. Taxation (On Certain Goods Carried by Road) Act, 1976. It is not necessary, as rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the parties, to go into the merits of this case since, the initiation of this matter is ipso-facto bad. Same under the provisions of the H.P. Taxation (On Certain Goods Carried by Road) Act, 1976. It is not necessary, as rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the parties, to go into the merits of this case since, the initiation of this matter is ipso-facto bad. It is relevant to quote Section 11 of the H.P. Taxation (On Certain Goods Carried by Road) Act, 1976 : 11. Penalties (I) howsoever-(a) contravenes or abets the contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or the rules made there under or any order or direction made under any such provision or rule, or (b) has concealed the particulars of the goods carried or deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars of such goods, shall on conviction be liable to imprisonment of either description which may extend to six months or to a fine which may extend to one thousand rupees or to both. (2) No Magistrate shall take cognizance of any offence under this Act, or the rules made there under except on a complaint in writing made by an Officer or authority authorized by the State Government or the Commissioner in this behalf. 4. A perusal of Sub-section (2) of Section 1 aforesaid indicates that no magistrate shall take cognizance of any offence under this Act or under the Rules made there under except on a complaint in writing made by an officer or authority authorized by the State Government or the Commissioner in this behalf. 5. The Government of Himachal Pradesh, Department of Excise and Taxation has issued Notification No. 12-12/76 E&T-24S3 5 dated 27th October, 1976, By this notification Excise and Taxation Officers, Asstt. Excise and Taxation Officers in charge of the District in which the Barrier at which the offence is committed under the aforesaid Act are authorized to lodge complaint in the Court of Magistrate Ist Class to take the cognizance of any offence under this Act or the Rules made there under. This has not been done in the present case. The matter has been lodged with the Police, investigated by it and prosecution also initiated by it. 6. In view of the provision and the circumstances as above, the initiation of the case itself is illegal and without jurisdiction. 7. The result, therefore, is that there is merit in this Revision Petition. The same is accordingly allowed. The Petitioner is acquitted of the charge. 6. In view of the provision and the circumstances as above, the initiation of the case itself is illegal and without jurisdiction. 7. The result, therefore, is that there is merit in this Revision Petition. The same is accordingly allowed. The Petitioner is acquitted of the charge. Fine, if any, paid by the Petitioner be refunded to him immediately. Bail bonds and surety bonds, if any, executed by the Petitioner at any stage of this case are hereby cancelled.