IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.Appeal No. 75 of 2002. Judgment reserved on : 10.3.2009 Date of decision: 13.3.2009 State of H.P. …….Appellant Vs. Satpal Singh and another ….. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Appellant : Mr. Anshul Bansal, Additional Advocate General. For the Respondents : Mr. Inder Singh, Advocate vice Mr. Baldev Singh,Advocate. Kuldip Singh, Judge This appeal has been directed against the judgment dated 24.7.2001 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Una in Criminal Appeal No.50/2000 acquitting the respondents after reversing judgment dated 16.8.2000 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No.II Amb in Case No.24-III/98. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that PW-7 SHO Kailash Walia was patrolling along with PW-5 SI Surinder Kumar, PW-4 HC Sunil Mohammed and constable Kewal Khan and other police officials at Gagret on 20.4.1998 at about 3.30 p.m. In the meantime truck bearing registration No.HPG-227 came from Daulatpur side and was stopped. On checking the truck, 20 Qtls. fuel wood, 3 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes 2 scants of rumbal and 7 scants of simbal were recovered from the truck. The fuel wood and the timber was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW-4/B. 3. The further prosecution case is that the respondents were transporting the fuel wood and the timber without any pass or permit under the Forest Produce Transit ( Land Route) Rules ,1978 ( for short rules). The truck was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW-4/A, site plan of the spot Ex.P-3 was prepared. Ruka Ex.P-1 was sent to police station, Gagret on which FIR Ex.P-2 was registered. The Investigating Officer moved an application Ex.P-3 to Tehsildar, Amb for demarcation of khasra No.4334 owned and possessed by appellant Jagar Nath. The demarcation report Ex.P-4 was given by PW-2 Braham Singh of the place from where the fuel wood and timber had been extracted. The site plan Ex.P-5 of that place was prepared by PW-5 SI Surinder Kumar. The respondents could not produce any pass or permit under the rules, therefore, the challan was presented against them under Sections 41 and 42 of the Act. The substance of accusation was put to them to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution has examined seven witnesses and produced some record. The statements of respondents were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. in which they pleaded their innocence. The learned trial Court convicted the appellants as they had violated Rule 11(1) of the Rules and sentenced them till rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default of payment of fine, the respondents were directed to undergo simple imprisonment for one month each. The respondents 3 filed appeal which was accepted by learned Sessions Judge, Una on 24.7.2001 and they were acquitted, hence this appeal. 4. I have heard Mr. Anshul Bansal, learned Addl. Advocate General for the State and Mr. Inder Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents and have gone through the record. Mr. Bansal has submitted that prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt against the respondents. The learned Sessions Judge has erred in reversing well reasoned judgment of learned trial Magistrate. The prosecution has proved the case by leading oral and documentary evidence. The learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that learned Sessions Judge has appreciated the facts and law properly and no fault can be found in the judgment of acquittal recorded by learned Sessions Judge. He has supported the impugned judgment. 5. There is no allegations against the respondents that they had illicitly cut the trees from Govt. land. The fuel wood and timber was taken out from khasra No.4334 owned and possessed by respondent No.2 Jagar Nath. In these circumstances what is to be seen whether any permit or pass was required for transporting the timber when it was intercepted as alleged by the prosecution. The rule 11 has been reproduced by learned Sessions Judge in para 21 (sic 22) and rule 17 in para 23 of the impugned judgment which are as follows:- “11 (1) No person shall transport of cause to be transported any forest produce by land routes, without obtaining pass ( Annexures A) from the concerned Divisional Forest Officer or any other officer so authorized. 4 (2) No person shall transport or cause to be transported any timber for conversion for sawing or for sale enroute. 17. Notwithstanding any thing contained in these Rules a right holder who has collected forest produce in exercise of his recorded rights may, without obtaining a pass the revenue estate in which it has been so collected. Provided further that no timber will be removed from the forests unless checked and hammer marked and detail of timber extracted written on the overleaf of the permit by the Forest Officer authorized in this behalf “. 6. On the admitted case of the prosecution rule 11 prohibits transportation of any forest produce by land routes, without obtaining pass from the concerned Divisional Forest Officer or any other officer so authorized. The rule 17 is not happily worded but the intention of rule 17 appears to be that within revenue estate, a right holder who has collected forest produce in exercise of his recorded rights is authorized to move the forest produce. The intention is obvious in as much as in absence of rule 17 even for day to do working, a right holder cannot move, transport any forest produce even for his domestic and agriculture use within revenue estate also. In the present case there is no allegation that the respondent No.3 had transported fuel and timber wood from the revenue estate of the origin of fuel wood and timber to other revenue estate. The learned Sessions Judge has considered the evidence. At the time of hearing no specific evidence has been pointed out which establishes the case of the prosecution that infact the timber was being transported from 5 one revenue estate to another revenue estate. The learned Sessions Judge has taken a possible view in setting aside the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 16.8.2000 of trial Court and acquitting the respondents. No case for interference is made out, the appeal is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds discharged. ( Kuldip Singh) Judge March 13, 2009 (sks)