IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Appeal No. 384 of 2001 Date of decision: 28.4.2008 State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus Bhaur Singh …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellant : Mr. P.K. Sharma, Add. A.G. For the respondent : Ms. Shweta Julka, Advocate. Surjit Singh, Judge( Oral ) State has appealed against the judgment of the trial Court, whereby respondent Bhaur Singh, who was tired for an offence, punishable under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act, has been acquitted, both on merits and also on account of the bar contained in Section 468 Cr. P.C. 2. I have gone through the record and heard the learned Additional Advocate General. Case was instituted against the respondent by Shri Dolam Chand, Deputy Ranger, on 31.12.1996, alleging that on 7.11.1994 when PW-2 Pyaru Ram, Forest Guard, accompanied by two witnesses, namely Chuni Lal and Jhor Singh, was on patrolling duty in un- demarcated protected forest, Pannu, he noticed that one dry tree of Kail had been illicitly felled. He came to know that the said tree had been Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… felled by the present respondent. Therefore, he prepared damage report against the respondent, on 7.11.1994 itself. 2. Offence under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act, which the respondent was alleged to have committed, is punishable with imprisonment, that may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to Rs.500/- or with both. Under Section 468 Cr. P.C., a Court cannot take cognizance of offence, after one year, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year. Limitation commences, according to Section 469 Cr. P.C., from the date of offence or where the date of commission of offence is not known, from the date of the knowledge of the commission of offence to the aggrieved person and where the identity of accused is not known, the limitation begins to run from the date of the acquisition of knowledge about the identity of the offender. 3. In the present case, commission of offence came to the notice of the Forest Guard on 7.11.1994. Identity of the accused also came to his notice on that very day, as is clear from damage report Ext.PW2/A. That means, limitation began to run, for the purpose of Section 468 Cr. P.C., on 7.11.1994. Case was instituted more than two years, after the Forest Guard came to know about the commission of offence and the identity of the offender. Therefore, the Magistrate could not have taken the cognizance of the offence, in view of bar contained in Section 468 Cr. P.C. 4. In view of the above stated position, the appeal is dismissed. April 28, 2008 (ss) ( Surjit Singh ), J.