IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 458 of 2002. Date of decision: 11.11.2009 State of H.P. ... Appellant Versus Yash Pal Singh & Ors. … Respondents Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant: Mrs. Shubh Mahajan, Deputy Advocate General and Mr. J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General. For the respondents: Mr. R.K. Gautam, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sandeep Pandey, Advocate, for respondent No. 1. Mr. N.K. Thakur, Advocate, for respondents No. 2 to 4. V.K. Ahuja , J. (Oral): This is an appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment of the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una, dated 9.1.2002, vide which the respondents were acquitted of the charge framed against them under Sections 41/42 of Indian Forest Act and Sections 182, 183 and 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that a police party headed by S.H.O. Pritam Singh alongwith other police officials had 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 received a secret information, intercepted an Ambassador Car bearing No. HYE-673 at Kuthar Kalan on 28.10.1995. The car was made to stop and respondent No. 1 Yash Pal Singh was driving the car and respondent No. 2 Mohinder Pal was allegedly in the car, who ran away when the car was stopped at the instance of the police party. On search of the car, the police received 110 logs of Khair trees from the dickey of the car and respondent No. 1 was not able to produce any permit or permission to cut the Khair trees and accordingly, he was arrested. The case was investigated by the police. On investigation, it was found that these trees have been cut at the instance of respondents No. 3 and 4, who were also impleaded as an accused. The challan was presented before the learned trial Court, who framed the charge as against the respondents under Sections 41/42 of the Indian Forest Act, Section 16 of H.P. Land Preservation Act and under Sections 183 and 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The respondents were tried by the learned trial Court, leading to their acquittal. Being aggrieved, the State has preferred the present appeal. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. On appraisal of the evidence, it is clear that there is no evidence as against respondents No. 3 and 4 that they had illegally felled seven Khair trees and accordingly, since there was no evidence as against these respondents and as such, in this regard the order passed of acquittal against them, it does not call for an interference by this Court. In regard to respondent No. 2 Mohinder Pal, the learned trial Court has given reasoning that respondent No.2 was not known to the police party or the witnesses could not identify him or later on during the 3 identification parade. Even the witnesses who have been examined as prosecution witnesses, none have identified him except PW-8 Pritam Singh, S.H.O., who pointed out towards him that he was the person who ran away. No other witness has stated that the accused present in the Court is the same person who ran away from the spot on that date and, therefore, evidence led as against respondent No. 2 cannot be said to be sufficient to hold that the charge as against him stands proved. Coming to the charge as against respondent No. 1, the learned trial Court has observed that there are some contradictions in the statements of the witnesses, namely, police officials examined. It has also been observed that in the recovery memo, names of two police officials Kishan Chand, Addl. S.H.O. and Ram Dyal, Investigation Officer, have also been mentioned as witnesses to the recovery of Khair trees and it assumes significance that since two independent persons, namely, Dev Dutt and Dilwar Ram were associated at that time. The possibility that the names of Dev Dutt and Dilwar Ram were added subsequently cannot be ruled out as has been observed by the learned trial Court. Out of these two witnesses, only one has been examined, namely, PW-1 Dev Dutt, who has not supported the prosecution witnesses and the learned trial Court has come to the conclusion that keeping in view the contradictions in the statements of official witnesses and the fact that PW-1, the only independent witness, has not supported the prosecution case, it had concluded that the charge as against respondent No. 1 also does not prove this fact. These findings cannot be said to be perverse keeping in view the evidence and it calls for no interference by this Court. In view of the above discussion, I accordingly hold that there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant/State of H.P., 4 which is dismissed accordingly. The bail bonds of the accused persons shall stand discharged forthwith. ( V.K. Ahuja ), November 11, 2009 Judge (BSS)