IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Revision No.38 of 2003. Date of Decision: 23.8.2010. _______________________________________________ Shadi Lal. ….Petitioner. Versus. State of H.P. ….Respondent. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the petitioner: :Mr.Ashok Sood, Advocate, For respondent: :Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. Dev Darshan Sud, J.(Oral). The petitioners challenge their conviction by the courts below for offences under Section 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act sentencing accused Shadi Lal to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs. 500/- and in case of default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for one month and accused Pratap Chand was punished with a fine of Rs.1,000/- for offences under Section 177 I.P.C. Petitioner Pratap Chand has died during the pendancy of this appeal and his name stands deleted from the array of the petitioners. Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment?yes. 2 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 14.6.2000, PW16 H.C. Gautam Chand along with PW2 Constable Atma Ram, PW3 Constable Bhoop Singh and Constable Bhopal Singh were present at Shamshar on patrolling duty. At around 3.30 a.m, they found that a truck bearing No. HP. 35-0597 which was coming from Gugra to Anni was stopped by them. It was searched and found that 27 scants of Deodar were being transported. The truck was being driven by Shadi Lal in which one of the other accused Besi Ram was also sitting. The truck in question was owned by deceased petitioner Pratap Chand. The case is that both the accused failed to produce any permit of carriage of timber and there was thus a breach of the provision of Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act. The petitioners herein appealed to the learned Sessions Judge. 3. On the basis of the evidence of the police personnel, the learned appellate Court confirmed the sentences. DW1 Pratap Chand had stated that in the year 1994, T.D. was granted to him and he is in fact possession of such timber. He produced permit Ext.PW1/A to substantiate his stand. It was stated that he had sawn these sleepers at the saw mill of Tej Ram where also the permit was produced for inspection. He says that the timber was taken from the vehicle when it was parked because his driver had gone to attend his wife who had recently gave birth to a child. He said that he was not present in the vehicle at the time when the so called seizure was made. 3 4. DW2 Shadi Lal was the driver of the truck he informed the police that the owner of these 27 sleepers was Partap Chand. When he was asked for the permit, Partap Chand came to the Police Station along with the permit. Bansi Lal was the labourer who loaded the timber. 5. Though, an attempt has been made by the learned appellate Court to affirm the case and to hold that the testimony of defendants is not reliable, what I find on an appreciation of the record is that the owner of the timber Pratap Chand has been let off and punished only for offences under Section 177 I.P.C. The driver has been convicted for offences under Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act. 6. DW1 Partap Chand who was the owner of the timber is dead. So far as the petitioner Shadi Lal is concerned, there is no evidence on the record to point out to his involvement in the case. The owner of the timber has come forward and accepted the ownership of the timber and has also produced on record Ext.PW1/A which is the permit, yet the courts below have ignored this fact. If it was deceased Partap Chand, who was the owner of the timber then the responsibility should and ought to have been fixed on him and not on the driver. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner also urges that according to Rule 17 of the H.P. Timber Transit Rules, no permit was required as the T.D. timber was being transported in the same revenue estate. He also submits that the ownership of the timber was duly established as the offences 4 under Section 379 I.P.C. were not proved against the petitioner and the courts hold that there is no theft. 8. I find from the evidence that the rejection of the permit Ext.PW1/A as a valid authority for transporting the timber is tenuous. The courts below should have realized that once theft was ruled out, the ownership as admitted by deceased Partap Chand, the driver could not be convicted as there is no evidence on the record to show that he was present at the time in the truck rather the evidence is that the vehicle had been parked at one side and he had gone to attend his wife. 9. In these circumstances, I hold that the judgment of the courts below suffers from perversity. This revision petition is accordingly allowed. The conviction of the petitioner is quashed. Bail bonds furnished by the petitioner shall stand discharged. (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge. August 23,2010(R) 5 6 7 8