IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.A.No.91 of 2001 Reserved on 2.1.2008 Date of decision 4.1.2008 State of H.P. Appellant Versus Man Singh and another Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant : Mr.M.A.Khan, Deputy Advocate General. For the respondents: Mr.Raman Sethi, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Ravinder Thakur, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Rajiv Sharma,J. The respondents were prosecuted under Section 379 read with section 34 IPC and Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 in the court of Additional Chief judicial Magistrate, Kandaghat in Criminal Case No.7/2 of 1997/92. They were acquitted on 6.10.1999. The present appeal has been preferred by the State against the judgment dated 6.10.1999. The brief facts as gathered from the judgment of the trial court are that a written complaint was made by Sant Ram to the effect that on 20.8.1991 at about 11.30 a.m. while checking the truck No.HIE-1118 at forest check post, Parwanoo, 39 sleepers hidden under the boxes of apples and pears boxes and bags were found in the said truck. On the basis of the written complaint FIR was registered in Police Station, Parwanoo. The prosecution in order to prove its case against the accused 1 Whether reporter of local papers is allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 has examined as many as 14 witnesses. The respondents were examined under Section 313 Cr. P.C. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kandaghat acquitted the respondents on 6.10.1999. The State has filed the present appeal against the acquittal of the respondents. Mr. M.A.Khan, learned Deputy Advocate General had strenuously argued that the prosecution has proved the case against the respondents. Mr.Raman Sethi and Mr.Ravidner Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the respondents had supported the judgment. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully. PW-8 Lekh Raj has deposed that he was posted as Forest Guard in Sargam forest barrier and truck No.HIE-1118 had crossed the barrier and the entries to this effect were made. He further stated that the driver of the truck had also entered in the Register that the apples and pears were loaded in the truck. In his cross-examination he had categorically admitted that he had checked the vehicle and had found nothing unlawful in the truck. He also admitted that there is a forest barrier at Giripur where the trucks are also checked. PW-9 Kanwar Singh has taken into possession export permits Ex.PW-9/A and Ex.PW-9/B and has also taken into possession bill book vide recovery memo Ex.PW-9/C and had prepared the site plan Ex.PW-9/D from where the Deodar trees were cut. However, he has admitted that Ex.PW-9/A and Ex.PW-9/B were not attested by any forest official. PW-10 Mohan Singh had stated categorically that the respondent Man Singh had purchased the seized timber in auction and he was given export permit by the Divisional Forest Officer. He had further stated that he put the seized hammer CPL/CF/54 on the sleepers as the respondent had to take the sleepers to Yamuna Nagar. PW-1 has not stated that PW-7 and PW-11, PW-12 and PW-14 were also present when the vehicle in question was checked by him. He has admitted in his cross-examination that the damage report encircled X portion was not filled because he was not aware who the real culprit was. 3 He had further admitted that no complaint was received that any illegal felling of Deodar trees or theft of sleepers have taken place. Surprisingly the police have also not taken into possession the sleepers recovered from the truck bearing No.HIE-1118. Ishwar Dass forest guard (PW-11) has deposed in his cross-examination that there were three persons who were checking the truck when it came from Shimla side. Bhagat Ram (PW-7) has stated that he had also checked the truck along with Sant Ram PW-1 and Ishwar Dass, PW-11. However, he had admitted that he had not brought the ‘rapat rojnamcha’ reflecting that his duty was from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. on 20.8.1991. Similarly, Vijay Kumar (PW-12) has also stated that he has not brought the rapat rojnamcha of the duty. Virender Kumar (PW-14) had also admitted that for reaching Parwanoo from Gainkot there were forest department barriers which are to be crossed. The prosecution has not led any cogent evidence to establish that there was illicit felling of 9 deodar trees which were converted into 39 sleepers. PW-10 as observed above has stated that D.F.O. had issued export permit to the respondent after the respondent had purchased the timber in auction and he had put hammer mark CPL/CF/54 on the sleepers. PW-8 had checked the truck at Sargam forest barrier and has not found any unlawful item in the truck. Why the police has not taken the sleepers in possession, has not been explained by the prosecution. The trial court on the basis of material contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses and after considering the same has rightly acquitted the respondents. Therefore, the judgment passed by the trial court calls for no interference. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. The bonds furnished by the accused are discharged. January 4 ,2008(g) ( Rajiv Sharma ), J