Surinder Singh,J (Oral) :-In both the appeals, the accused-respondents were acquitted by the learned trial court for want of permission of the Magistrate to investigate the non-cognizable offences under Section 155 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in short “the Code”. As the common question of law is involved in both the cases, therefore, taken up together for its decision.

2. The facts of Criminal Appeal No.160 of 2002 may be noted thus. On 15.11.1995 at about 4 a.m., the police party headed by ASI Shyam Lal intercepted Truck No.HPA-1986 allegedly transporting khair wood, concealed under the limestone powder bags. The respondents failed to produce the permit, thus, the khair wood was taken into possession and am FIR No.484/95 case under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act, was registered against them, in police station Paonta Sahib.

3. During the investigation, it came to the notice that the khair wood was cut from Khasra No.139, owned by respondent No.2 Sant Singh, therefore, the police dropped Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, but came to the conclusion that an offence under Section 4 of the Land Preservation A