JUDGMENT : Pradip Mohanty, J. - This Government Appeal is directed against the judgment and Order Dated 19.03.1986 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Second Class, Nayagarh in 2 (b) C.C. Case No. 1 of 1980/T.R. Nos. 44 of 1983 acquitting the Respondents of the offence under Rule 16 of the Orissa Timber and other Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1967. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 19.05.1979 on the P.W. D. Road Nayagarh in front of the P.W. D. Office a truck loaded with Sal sizes was seized by the Forester, on failure of the accused-Respondents to produce the required transit permit. After proper investigation, prosecution report was submitted against the accused- Respondents. 3. The plea of the defence is that seized size wood are backed with permit and the case was filed against them because of non-production of the permit instantly by the driver of the vehicle. 4. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses and exhibited two documents. Defence has examined only one witness and exhibited five documents. 5. Learned J.M.S.C. who tried the case by his judgment dated 19.03.1986 acquitted the accused persons of the offence in which they were charged on the finding that prosecution has failed to establish its case. 6. Learned Additional Standing Counsel submitted that the T.T. permit was not produced at the relevant time by the driver. Therefore, the Trial Court committed gross illegality by accepting the defence case that seized Sal sizes were backed by permit. He further submitted that there are materials to convict the accused-Respondents under Rule 16 of the Orissa Timber and other Forest Produce Transmit Rules. 7. Mr. Mohanty, Learned Counsel for the accused-Respondents vehemently contended that no illegality has been committed by the Trial Court in acquitting the accused-Appellants, when it has been proved by the defence that valid transit permit was there under Ext. B.P.W. 8 also endorsed it under Ext. A and without verifying the records, the forest officials launched the prosecution to harass the Respondents. 8. Perused the record. P.W. 8 in his cross-examination admitted that he had received the application for issue of T.T. permit which was produced by the defence, wherein the endorsement of P.W. 8 is marked as Ext. A. He also admitted issuance of the transit permit (Ext. B), which was produced by the defence. The application under Ext. 8. Perused the record. P.W. 8 in his cross-examination admitted that he had received the application for issue of T.T. permit which was produced by the defence, wherein the endorsement of P.W. 8 is marked as Ext. A. He also admitted issuance of the transit permit (Ext. B), which was produced by the defence. The application under Ext. A is specific that due to some difficulties the sal sizes transported in truck Nos. ORC 5939 could not reach the destination, i.e., Puri. Therefore, the T.T. permit may be issued for transporting the same up to Khurda Road in Truck Nos. ORU 9039. There is also discrepas, ncy with regard to seizure of Sal sizes. According to P.W. 8, he recovered 175 pieces of Sal sizes whereas, only 125 pieces of Sal sizes had been mentioned in the seizure list. P.W. 5, an independent witness, also admitted in his cross-examination that sometime after the seizure, a person holding some paper came and showed those to the Ranger, but the Ranger did not accept the same. 9. this Court is of opinion that the prosecution miserably failed to bring home the charge to the Respondents. Hence this Court does not find any merit in this Govt. Appeal. In the result, Govt. Appeal is dismissed. 10. Appeal dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed