HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr.A.No. 367 of 2001 Decided on: 6.5.2008. Kishori Lal Soni ………Appellant. Versus Prakash Chand ……Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the appellant: Mr.Rakesh Jaswal and Mr.Vivekanand, Advocates. For the respondent: Ajay Sharma, Advocate. V.K. Ahuja, J (Oral): This is an appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment of the court of learned CJM, Una, dated 10.1.2001, vide which, in a complaint filed by the appellant as against the respondent under Section 379/447 IPC, the learned CJM acquitted the respondent. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant lodged a complaint with the Superintendent of Kutlehar Forest alleging that he is owner in possession of the land bearing Khasra No.1092 and there were about 20 trees of Khair on the said land. It was alleged that the accused/respondent is a Forest Contractor and he had got a permit for felling of trees. It was further alleged _______ 1.Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - that the accused had represented to the Superintendent, Kutlehar Forest that he purchased 7 Khair trees from the complainant and got the 7 trees marked and thereafter, cut and removed the said trees from the land of the complainant in the month of February, 1994 without the consent or authorization of the complainant. The complainant further alleged that his son represented to the Deputy Commissioner and Police Station, Bangana against the illegal cutting of the trees from the land, but no action was taken. However, the Deputy Commissioner, Una got the land demarcated from the Tehsildar Bangana, who found 7 trees cut and removed from the land of the complainant bearing Khasra No.1092. It was further alleged that he represented to the Superintendent Kutlehar Forest, who reported that a sum of Rs.4,550/- has been paid by the accused in the saving bank account of the complainant. Thus, the complainant alleged that since the respondent had committed the theft of 7 trees from his land, therefore, he is liable to be held guilty under Sections 379 and 447 IPC. A private complaint was filed by the complainant, who led evidence and the learned trial Court summoned the respondent under Sections 379/447 IPC. After trial, the respondent was acquitted of the charge, hence the present appeal. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant were that there is a demarcation report Mark-X, which proves that the trees were cut from the land in possession of the complainant. It was also submitted that the fact that the respondent admitted to have deposited the amount in his representation to the Superintendent Kutlehar Forest as well as in his statement - 3 - under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that he had illegally cut the trees from the land of the complainant proves the case as such he is liable for the offence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent had submitted that the demarcation report was not proved according to law and there is nothing to establish that these trees were cut from the Khasra number in possession of the complainant. The mere fact that the amount was deposited by the respondent in view of the dispute in between the co-owners, it cannot be said that the accused had cut the trees from the land in possession of the complainant. I have gone through the judgment of the learned trial Court. The learned trial Court has rightly not believed the demarcation report Mark-X since it was tendered in evidence only in the statement of the complainant and was not got proved from the statement of any Revenue Officer who had gone to the spot to demarcate the land and had given his report. In regard to the fact that the respondent had deposited a sum of Rs.4,550/- in the account of the complainant, the respondent, in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., had admitted this fact that he had deposited this amount since there was a boundary dispute in between the co-owners and accordingly he deposited the amount in the account of the complainant. However, he has stated in reply to a question that he had not cut any trees from the land of the complainant. The mere admission or proof that this amount was deposited by the respondent in the account of the complainant only proves that there was some dispute and accordingly the amount was deposited by the respondent, but this does not stand proved that this amount was deposited for cutting of 7 trees from the land of the complainant comprising in Khasra - 4 - No.1092. Therefore, the findings recorded by the learned trial Court cannot be said to be perverse and do not call for an interference by this court. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the appeal filed by the complainant. Therefore, the same is dismissed. Bail bonds furnished by the respondent shall stand discharged. May 6, 2008 (V.K. Ahuja), (TILAK) Judge.