(1) LEAVE granted.

(2) ON a complaint lodged by the Divisional Forest Officer, Morena under S. 5-C, 12, 12-A and 16 of the Madhya Pradesh Van Upaj (Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1969 and S. 26 and 42 read with Section 41 of the FOREST ACT, 1927 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), the respondent was summoned by a Judicial Magistrate to stand trial. Assailing his prosecution he moved an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which was allowed by a Single Judge of the High court. Hence this appeal at the instance of the State of Madhya Pradesh.

(3) IT is rather surprising that at a stage when the only question to be considered was whether the complaint and its accompaniments disclosed any or all of the offences alleged against the respondent, the learned Judge not only went into a detailed discussion about his defence but recorded a conclusive finding that he was not guilty of the offences alleged against him. More surprising is that the learned Judge ignored the provisions of Section 69 of the Act which expressly raises a statutory presumption against a person arraigned that the forest produce recovered from him was a property of the