JUDGMENT Kiran Anand Lall, J. - On filing of complaint under Section 20 of the Land Preservation Act (to be referred as "the Act") read with Section 52 of the Indian Forest Act, by the Forester-in-charge, Harbans Lal, the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hoshiarpur, summoned Shanti Nath respondent as accused, held trial, and acquitted him vide judgment dated 21.4.1992. 2. The charge against the respondent was that though permit, Ex.P1, was issued to him for extracting tapping resin from 6300 blazes in Malot Forest (at the rate of Rs. 40/- per blaze), he extracted more resin by increasing the permissible dimension of tapping and also by extracting resin out of more than 6300 blazes. This act of his, decreased the age of the trees, and accordingly, a penalty of Rs 60,015/- was imposed on him. After adjusting a sum of Rs. 22,060/- which was lying as his security with the department, towards the amount of penalty, a sum of Rs. 37,965/- still remained due from him. He was, therefore, asked to deposit this remaining amount of penalty. But, he failed to do so. Hence, a criminal complaint was filed against him in court. 3. As mentioned in para 14 of the impugned judgment, the trees which were auctioned and the land underneath those, was the absolute ownership of the gram panchayat. The Forest Department had only control over the trees, under the Act, in view of the notification No. 644 Ex.P2/P3. The respondent had a valid permit, Ex.P1 (P4), for extracting resin, in respect of 6300 blazes. Therefore, it was rightly held that there had been no violation of any provisions of the Act and as such, no offence under Section 20 of the Act was made out. 4. In so far as Section 52 of the Indian Forest Act, is concerned, it becomes applicable only when there is reason to believe that a forest offence has been committed in respect of any forest produce, and not otherwise. In this case, none of the witnesses had deposed before the trial Court as to what was the total number of blazes out of which resin was extracted by the respondent, or what was the increased dimension of the tappings, out of which resin was extracted by him. In this case, none of the witnesses had deposed before the trial Court as to what was the total number of blazes out of which resin was extracted by the respondent, or what was the increased dimension of the tappings, out of which resin was extracted by him. They (witnesses) simply stated that the respondent extracted resin out of more than the allotted number of blazes and besides, he had extracted resin by increasing the dimension of tappings. Therefore, the learned trial Court rightly held that in view of the totally vague statements of the PWs, the respondent could not be held guilty of having committed an offence under Section 52 of the Indian Forest Act. 5. As the learned Assistant Advocate General could not put forward any valid ground to attack the judgment of the trial court, the verdict of acquittal of the respondent recorded by the trial Court cannot be upset, particularly, when it is not in dispute that the complaint had been filed against the respondent without obtaining sanction of the Divisional Forest Officer and without there being any authorisation in favour of the complainant, Harbans Lal, forester-in-charge, for prosecuting him. 6. In the light of what has been discussed above, I do not find any merit in the appeal and the same shall, accordingly, stand dismissed. Appeal dismissed.