JUDGMENT A. L. Vaidya, J—The present respondent was prosecuted under sections 41/42 of the Indian Forest Act read with Rule 14 of the H. P. Forest (Sale of Timber) Rules, 1969, (hereinafter to be called as "the Rules") for violation of Rule 9 thereof. 2. According to the prosecution, on 1st June, 1987, Shri Hari Singh, Deputy Ranger, along with Khub Ram, Forest Ranger and Mohan Singh, Forest Guard, inspected the saw mill, which was being run by the accused at that time in pursuance of an agreement executed by Shri Gur in favour of the accused, On checking it was revealed that 36 sleepers of various sizes were found in the said premises about which the accused on demand could not produce any document The said timber was seized and F. I. R No. 153/87 was registered against the accused on a written complaint made by Shri Gulab Chands Range Officer, Sundernagar, During investigation it was revealed that the accused had transported the timber in question without obtaining any permit from the forest department and had also kept the same in his saw mill without making its entries in the relevant register as was required under the Rules, It was on the basis of the aforesaid circumstances that the complaint was put up against the accused before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sundernagar. The accused, after trial, was acquitted by the trial Magistrate. 3. The aforesaid order of acquittal has been assailed in the present appeal on various grounds. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records. 5. The trial Magistrate came to the conclusion that there was no evidence examined during the trial of the complaint which could establish that it was the accused who had transported the seized timber to the saw mill, The trial Magistrate also came to the conclusion, on the basis of the evidence examined, that the accused could not be held liable for maintaining any record or to give account about the presence of the timber in the said premises inasmuch as the accused person had no concern with the running of the saw mill in question. 6. 6. In so far as the first aspect of the complaint is concerned, there is practically no legally competent evidence to prove that it was the accused who had transported the timber in question and, as such, was to explain his conduct in doing so without any transit permit However, on the other hand there is ample evidence on record to suggest and legally connect the accused pertaining to the violation of the Rules by not accounting for that seized timber and not maintaining any record to that effect as was required under the Rules. 7. It has been the case of the prosecution that on the day of occurrence, on the basis of an agreement, accused was incharge of the sawmill and it was his mandatory obligation to have maintained the record pertaining to the timber lying in the said premises. The accused has simply denied the occurrence. 8. It may not be out of place to mention here that the evidence examined during the trial clearly proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused was incharge of the saw mill from where the timber in question was seized at the time of the occurrence. As per evidence examined during the trial, it has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused was present in the saw mill and the alleged timber was seized in his presence from those premises. The prosecution has brought on record the agreement Ex. P-l executed by Shri Gur, the owner of the saw mill, in favour of the accused on 20-5-1987. In this agreement it has been very specifically recorded that the owner of the saw mill was Gur son of Shri Bangalu resident of Bhojpur who had given his saw mill in favour of Puran Chand son of Nanak Chand for a period of two years at a monthly rent of Rs 400 as he could not run the saw mill because he proposed to go out of India. It has also been recorded in Ex. P-l that Rs. 3,000, as advance rent had already been received. Another averment made in this agreement is that Puran Chand would be liable to pay rent to Smt. Chinta Devi wife of Gur every month. It has also been recorded in Ex. P-l that Rs. 3,000, as advance rent had already been received. Another averment made in this agreement is that Puran Chand would be liable to pay rent to Smt. Chinta Devi wife of Gur every month. It was also recorded that Puran Chand was entrusted to look after the saw mill in the absence of Gur and when he would come back the earnest money would be paid back to Puran Chand. This document bears the signatures of Gur as well as that of Puran Chand. The trial Magistrate came to the conclusion that the execution of the aforesaid document has not at all been legally proved inasmuch as Gur, the owner, has not supported the prosecution in this behalf The trial court came to the conclusion that in case this document is not considered to be legal evidence, there was nothing else on the record to suggest that the accused was incharge of the saw mill at that particular time and under the Rules he was required to maintain the account of the timber lying in the saw mill 9. The statements of Gur and other witnesses examined during the trial clearly proved the legal execution of this document. Gur was examined as PW-Ii. He stated on oath that he was running a saw mill in Bhojpur (Sundernagar) and he knew accused Puran Chand. According to this witness, Puran Chand was working near the saw mill of the witness. He further added that in order to visit foreign country he had gone to Delhi but he could not get the flight and thereafter he came back. He remained in Delhi for about 22 days According to this witness, for that period of 22 days ^he saw mill did not work and in his absence his wife Smt Chinta was looking after the saw mill. He further added that apart from his wife accused was also supervising the working of the saw mill. He stated that the contents of Ex- P-I had been read over to him. Those were not like that and he re-affirmed that supervision was done by his wife. He again stated that Ex. PW-9/A was signed by him and Ex. P-l also bears his signatures. 10. Ex. PW-9/A is the recovery memo of Ex. P-l. That means that this Gur has admitted his signatures not only on Ex. Those were not like that and he re-affirmed that supervision was done by his wife. He again stated that Ex. PW-9/A was signed by him and Ex. P-l also bears his signatures. 10. Ex. PW-9/A is the recovery memo of Ex. P-l. That means that this Gur has admitted his signatures not only on Ex. P-l but also on its recovery memo. The conduct of this witness only reflected that he had executed this document and if it is so its natural consequence would be that on the basis of this document dated 20-5-1987 Puran Chand accused was incharge of the saw mill on the date of occurrence which took place on 1-6-1987, within the period of two years for which period this document was a valid one. There is nothing on record to prove that this document was even cancelled, 11. Thus, the other witnesses examined during the trial which included PW2, Shri Hari Singh, PW 3, Shri Mohan Singh, Block Officer, who have been unanimous in deposing that the timber was lying in the saw mill which was under the supervision of the accused on account of Ex. P-I. 12. The accused has denied the circumstances appearing against him in the complainants evidence. But he has rendered no explanation for not carrying out the provisions of the Rules whereby the register was required to be maintained under the Rules. 13. This is a case where the trial Magistrate has acted illegally in appreciating the evidence in a most unnatural, illegal and perverse manner. In case the reasons given by the trial Magistrate are taken note of, there cannot be any conviction in a case of the present nature where the owner had rented out the saw mill in favour of a third person, through a written agreement and that owner resiles from such an agreement. The owner cannot be said to have denied the execution of the alleged agreement Ex. P4 in favour of the accused The execution of this document is proved by the owner who himself also stated that the accused was also supervising the saw mill in his absence. AH these circumstances lead to the sole inference that the accused at the time of occurrence was incharge of the saw mill and he could not explain as to why no entry in the record, according to the Rules, was made pertaining to the seized timber. AH these circumstances lead to the sole inference that the accused at the time of occurrence was incharge of the saw mill and he could not explain as to why no entry in the record, according to the Rules, was made pertaining to the seized timber. That being so, the offence for the violation of the Rules stood clearly established against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. 14. In view of the foregoing reasons, the present appeal is accepted and the order of acquittal under reference as a consequence thereof is quashed. The accused-respondent is convicted for the infringement of the Rules whereby he was required, being the person incharge of the saw mill, to maintain Ad register of receipt of timber showing the date of receipt etc, as was required under Rule 9 of the Rules. The timber seized has already been confiscated to the State of H. P. As the occurrence took place about 8 years back, therefore, instead of sentencing the accused to undergo imprisonment he is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500 (rupees five hundred) for the aforesaid conviction. In default of payment of fine the accused- respondent is directed to undergo imprisonment for a period of one month. Appeal allowed.