IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Appeal No.394 of 2001 Date of decision : May 8, 2008 State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus Jagdish Chand and others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1. No. For the appellant : Mr. P.K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. For the Respondents : Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Advocate Surjit Singh, Judge (Oral) State has appealed against the judgment of trial Court, whereby the respondents, who were tried for offences, under Section 42 of the Indian Forest Act and Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, have been acquitted. 2. Police challaned the respondents, making the following allegations against them in the report, under Section 173 Cr. P.C. On 4.8.1995, around 11.45 PM when PW-5 HC Hukam Chand accompanied by PW-1 Tenzing, a Home Guard Volunteer and PW-2 Gurdial Singh was on patrol duty near Solang Nullah, he saw a tractor coming from Solang Nullah Forest. The tractor stopped at a saw-mill. It was being driven by respondent Jagdish Chand. When the tractor stopped, the other two respondents started unloading timber from its trolley. The timber consisted of 17 logs of Tosh tree. PW-5 HC Hukam Chand asked the respondents to produce the papers pertaining to the Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… timber. On their failure to produce the papers or to offer any plausible explanation about the ownership of the timber, PW-5 HC Hukam Chand seized the timber alongwith the tractor. Case was registered against all the respondents. Investigation was conducted. During the course of investigation, respondents Uday Ram and Gurdial made disclosure statements about the site from where they had allegedly felled the tree and also got recovered a saw, which was used to fell the tree. 3. Prosecution examined, besides the above named three police officials, a Range Officer, namely PW-4 G.S. Chandel and a Forest Guard PW-3 Fateh Chand. PW-3 Fateh Chand stated that the forest officials were already aware of the site from where a dry tree of Tosh had been removed. Admittedly, the wood recovered from the tractor was of a dry Tosh tree. Now if the site of the tree was already known to the forest officials, as testified by PW-3 Fateh Chand, the alleged disclosure statements of the above named two respondents Uday Ram and Gurdial become irrelevant. 4. Respondents took the plea that it was not timber, but fuel wood and it belonged to Mehar Chand to whom it had been sanctioned. Prosecution itself examined a Range Officer, namely PW-4 G.S. Chandel, who, in the cross-examination, admitted that the wood, in question, which had been evaluated by him, was of a dry Tosh tree and had been sanctioned to Mehar Chand as fuel wood. The statement of this witness proves the defence plea. For the foregoing reason, the appeal is dismissed being without any merit. May 8, 2008 (ss) ( Surjit Singh ), J …3…