JUDGMENT Bhawani Singh, J—This appeal arises out of the judgment of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra at Dhararmshala, in case No. 70-1/83, 262-111/ 83, 125-11/84 whereby the learned trial Judge vide his judgment dated 7-12 1984 acquitted the accused for offences under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code read with sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. 2. The prosecution case, in brief. Is that the accused were granted permit Fx. PW I/A for the transport of 86 quintals of Katha from Raja-ka- Bag to Delhi through Kandwal forest check post. According to the prosecution, the accused transported 53.4R quintals of Katha through this check post. The rest of the Katha weighing 32 50 quintals was not transported by the accused through this check post. The prosecution, therefore, concluded that the accused transported the same through some other road in order to avoid checking on this check post and evaded the payment of tax under section 3 of the Himachal Pradesh Taxation (on Certain Goods Carried by Road) Act, 1976 ; mode of payment and consequence for non-payment thereof having been prescribed under sections 4, 10 and 11 thereof. A case was registered against the accused. It is further alleged that the accused deposited the tax on 13-11-1982 subsequent of the registration of the case. After the investigation of the case, the trial commenced which ultimately ended in the aforesaid acquittal of the accused. 3. The learned Counsel for the parties have raised rival contentions. Shri L. S. Panta, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State of Himachal Pradesh, has very seriously asserted that the accused succeeded in transporting the Katha through any passage other than the one prescribed in the permit and thereby contravened the provisions of section 11 (3) (a) of the Himachal Pradesh Forest Produce Transit (Land Routes) Rules, 1978 enacted under sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. Besides, the accused contravened the provisions of section 420 of the Indian Penal Code thereby cheating the State of Himachal Pradesh by non-payment of tax leviable at Kandwal check post. It is further contended that the explanation of the accused is an afterthought and the payment of the tax by them was in order to escape punishment in the present case as the payment was made on 13-11-1982 after the registration of the present case against the accused. It is further contended that the explanation of the accused is an afterthought and the payment of the tax by them was in order to escape punishment in the present case as the payment was made on 13-11-1982 after the registration of the present case against the accused. In these circumstances, the learned Counsel argued, the accused has committed these offences and so they deserve to be convicted and the judgment of the trial Magistrate deserves to be set- aside. 4. On the other hand, Shri S. S. Kanwar, learned Counsel appearing for the accused has repudiated all these submissions of the counsel for the State and contends that none of these offences have at all been proved against the accused. It is the cardinal principle of law, he contends, that the accused cannot be convicted of any offence unless the prosecution succeeds in proving the guilt beyond doubt against them. Assessing rival contentions of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and the perusal of the record indicates that the prosecution has not been able to prove the commission of offences by the accused under section 11 (3) (a) of the Himachal Pradesh Forest Produce Transit (Land Routes) Rules, 1978 read with sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. Although section 11 (3) (a) has not been specifically mentioned in the charge-sheet, however, this can be the only provision made applicable in the present case. The case of the prosecution is that the accused transported the Katha through a passage other than Kandwal check post which was the only way through which the accused were authorised to carry the same. There is no evidence produced by the prosecution that the accused carried the same through some other passage. The statement of Shri Nika Ram (PW 6) is absolutely clear when he says that he carried the Katha through Kandwal check post and he was not stopped by anyone for the payment of tax. He further states that he did not know about the liability to pay tax at this particular place. The statements of these witnesses exclude the commission of offences by the accused as it was the liability of Shri Nika Ram (PW 6) under section 4 of the Himachal Pradesh Taxation (on Certain Goods Carried by Road) Act, 1976 to pay the same. Section 4 of the Act reads as under:— "4. The statements of these witnesses exclude the commission of offences by the accused as it was the liability of Shri Nika Ram (PW 6) under section 4 of the Himachal Pradesh Taxation (on Certain Goods Carried by Road) Act, 1976 to pay the same. Section 4 of the Act reads as under:— "4. Mode of payment of tax.—Every person-in-charge of the mechanical vehicle, cart or animal in or on which the goods are carried or the person-in-charge of the goods, at the time of crossing a barrier, shall pay to the Inspector-in-charge of the barrier the tax and shall obtain a receipt from him in token of having paid the amount specified therein." 5. It is in evidence that the accused were not in the truck when Katha was being carried by it. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the only relevant section which should become applicable in these circumstances is section 10 of the Act which reads as under: "10. Recovery of tax in case of refusal to pay or evasion,—(1) If the Inspector-in-charge of the barrier is satisfied that any person carrying the goods has evaded payment of tax due under this act, or such person has not made the payment of tax on demand, he may, for reasons to be recorded in writing and after hearing the said person, order detention of the goods as also the vehicle carrying such goods for such period as may reasonably be necessary and shall allow the same to proceed only on the owner of goods or his representative or the driver or other person-in-charge of the goods, vehicle, cart or animal on behalf of the owner of the goods making payment of the tax or furnishing to his satisfaction a security or executing a bond with or without sureties for securing the amount of tax, in the prescribed form. (2) In case the person-in-charge of the goods or vehicle detained under sub-section (I) fails to pay the tax due or furnish a bond referred to in sub-section (1) within 24 hours of the detention of such goods, the Inspector may cause the, goods to be sold in the prescribed manner. (3) The sale proceeds of such goods after defraying the expenses of sale and after deducting the tax shall be paid to the person-in-charge of the goods in the prescribed manner." 6. (3) The sale proceeds of such goods after defraying the expenses of sale and after deducting the tax shall be paid to the person-in-charge of the goods in the prescribed manner." 6. It has been contended by the defence counsel appearing for the accused that as soon as they came to know about the non-payment of the tax, the accused came forward and deposited the same, This act on the part of the accused further indicates that the explanation of Shri Nika Ram (PW 6) gains further strength. It is further contended that the filing of a complaint under section 11 (2) is void as no Court can take cognizance of any offence under this section unless the complaint was filed by a duly authorised person. Section 11 reads as follows: "11. Penalties,—(1) Whosoever—(a) contravenes or abets the contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder 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 in-accurate 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 thereunder except on a complaint in writing made by an officer or authority authorised by the State Government or the Commissioner in this behalf." 7. This point was not carried forward, hence left to be decided in future if and when so raised and pressed for decision. 8. Lastly, it is contended that no offence under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code has been made out against the accused. The perusal of the statements of the witnesses and conduct of the accused and the provisions of the law applicable to this case completely rule out the commission of the offence under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code as well. The explanation of the accused, in my opinion, is convincing and I do not in any way see any lack of honesty on their part. The findings of the trial court are in accordance with law and I proceed to confirm the same. 9. The result is that the appeal of the State fails and the same is dismissed. The explanation of the accused, in my opinion, is convincing and I do not in any way see any lack of honesty on their part. The findings of the trial court are in accordance with law and I proceed to confirm the same. 9. The result is that the appeal of the State fails and the same is dismissed. The personal bonds and surety bonds, if any, executed at any stage of the case are hereby discharged. Appeal dismissed.