1 HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 408/2000 Decided on: April 1, 2011. State of HP …Appellant. VERSUS Ramesh Chand & ors ….Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B.Misra, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Appellants: Mr. R.K.Sharma, Sr. Addl. AG For the respondents: Pt. Om Parkash Sharma, Advocate. Surinder Singh, Judge (Oral) Respondents were acquitted by the learned trial court for the offence punishable under Sections 379, 409, 467, 468, 411, 120-B of IPC and 4 & 42 of the Indian Forest Act. Hence, the present appeal by the State. 2. Heard and gone through the records. 3. In short, the prosecution story can be stated thus. On 18.6.1988, police party was preset in Kotwali Bazar, Dharamshala, where they received a secret information that respondent Ramesh Chand, a depot 2 holder had purchased illicit timber and was lying in National Home Industry, Dharamshala for sawing. On getting this information, police associated the officials of the forest department accompanied by PW-8 Paras Ram, Assistant Manager, HPFC and raided the premises of National Home Industry. Three logs of pine were recovered which were having the passing hammer “HPSFC No. 408/87-88” and the property hammer 8-1A. These logs were taken into possession and given on sapurdari to witness Paras Ram. 4. A rukka for registration of the case was sent to the Police Station which culminated into FIR Ex PW 21/A. Thereafter, police conducted the raid of the depot of respondent Ramesh Chand and recovered 61 pine scants which were not having any export hammer, but only had property and the passing hammer. These were also taken into possession and give on sapurdari to Paras aforesaid. 5. The stock register of the depot of Ramesh Chand respondent was not produced by him. The aforesaid timber was allegedly transported by the accused Amin Chand, Rajmal and Pradhan Singh without valid papers. 3 6. On the conclusion of investigation of the case, police found that work of felling and conversion was going on in Government Lot No. 87-88 in Lahla Forest Palampur which was being done by H.P. Forest Corporation where 374 trees having volume of 587.55 M3 were marked for felling and conversion. The contract of conversion was given to Rajmal, labour mate, whereas respondent Pradhan was timber watcher and Incharge of the lot. The entire work was being done under the supervison of Amin Chand, respondent. 7. The prosecution case is that from the aforesaid 374 trees, 3117 logs were converted, but the aforesaid forest officials and Labour contractor, in collusion with each other, converted from these trees only 3037 logs, volume whereof was shown to be 256.945 M3, out of these, they had sold 80 logs to respondent Ramesh Chand. 61 logs out of 80 logs were recovered from his sale depot and 3 logs from the National Home Industry at Dharamshala. The recovered lots were having passing hammer No. HPSFC 408 and property mark P-A-A. 8. During the investigation, respondent Amin Chand had produced the hammer No. 408 and respondent Pradhan Singh produced the property mark 4 No. P-1A/87-88, but passing register was neither produced by Amin Chand nor was traceable despite conducting raids in the premises of Amin Chand and also of respondent Pradhan Singh, but the police could only recover challan No. 13819 which was also taken into possession along with challan book from which it was torn out by the accused and the duplicate challans and the other documents were got reconciled. The police, on completion of the investigation, came to the conclusion that 166 sleepers were also sent to Madroha depot. They obtained specimen signatures of the accused along with their admitted writings along with other documents and were sent for the opinion of the GEQD. It is alleged that Amin Chand wrongly prepared the progress report and made wrong entries in the record. Thus, prima facie found connivance of the respondents 2 to 4 in disposing of forest timber illegally to Ramesh Chand, respondent. Hence, challan was presented under the aforesaid section in the court for their trial. 9. Respondents were accordingly charge- sheeted. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To prove its case, prosecution has examined the witnesses and the respondents were also examined under Section 5 313 of Cr.PC. Their defence was denial simplicitor. No evidence in defence was adduced by them. At the end of the trial, respondents were acquitted of the charges, precisely on the grounds that timber in question could not be connected with the property of the forest corporation, statements of the witnesses were contradictory and most of the material witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution. The Investigating Officer to prove recovery was not examined and from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, no property mark or export hammer was found on the recovered timber and also that the record of the depot of Ramesh Chand, as per witnesses on checking, was found in order, but that record was not produced, as such, adverse inference was drawn. 10. At the very outset, we would like to say that the material witnesses examined by the prosecution did not support its case, whereas PW-1, owner of National Home Industry stated that of course three logs were brought by khan-labour to his Industry, but when they were asked about its permit, they left the place on the pretext that they would be bringing it. But they did not 6 return and thereafter the police raided the premises and recovered the logs. 11. According to PW-2, Vijay Kumar, Depot Manager, the property hammer mark and passing hammer were not clear on the timber in question, nor it was readable and police only took into possession the record of the National Home Industry. 12. PW-4 Atma Ram, PW-5 Paras Ram, PW-10 Tek Chand, PW-11 Kishori Lal, PW-14, Ravinder, PW-15 Alok Chand, PW-19 Musadi Ram, PW-22 G.S. Parmar and PW-24 Prithvi Raj, turned hostile to the prosecution as they did not support its case. Rather they probabalised the defence. 13. We also find that no FIR regarding theft with respect to the said government lot was either registered by the forest officials or the employees of the Corporation any where either at Palampur or at Dharamshala. It was only on the receipt of the secret information that the police swung into action and took into possession above timber. During investigation they tried to collect the evidence that the logs and the timber which were recovered from the industry aforesaid and also from the depot of Ramesh Chand was that of the government lot of Lahla Part-A Forest Palampur. The witnesses with 7 respect to the identification of the property and hammer marks, no where stated that the scants and the logs which were recovered from the sale depot of Ramesh Chand, respondent and also from the National Home Industry bore the marks of the government lot. Even PW-2 who was engaged for measuring the aforesaid scants stated that he was not in a position to decipher the property hammer and the export marks on the timber in question . Rather, he said that any of the timber was having passing hammer and he also stated that the timber which was recovered was old enough and was not of a fresh origin. 14. The record also shows that the prosecution has sought the help from the challan form Ex PW-20/B, whereby 166 scants were sent to government depot and this shows that the challan was checked at various check points while the timber was in transit and these scants were received at its destination, i.e. in Madhoha depot by the forest officials and those officials were not examined. If that timber was wrongly sent to that depot, it was the duty of the officials who received the said property that they should have either sought permission to send it to its destination or reported the matter to their higher officers or to the police, but in 8 absence of non examination of such witnesses, no criminal liability can be fastened on the respondents and the learned trial court was right in drawing the adverse inference against the prosecution. 15. Further this was also the case of the prosecution that respondent Ramesh Chand did not produce the stock register and other documents in order to show the origin of the timber which was allegedly found in his depot by the police. But we find from the statement of PW-4 Atma Ram, who though turned hostile and also from the statement of PW-11 Kishori Lal that the police had taken the stock register from respondent Ramesh Chand, that respondent Ramesh had produced the entire record of his depot along with stock register to the police which was got tallied by the Investigating Officer and stock was found correct. Surprisingly, the stock register, if taken in possession by the police, did not find the light of the day during the trial of the case, which also doubts the probity of the prosecution case. 16. Another allegation is that the respondent Pradhan Singh, who was the Incharge, had shown less timber in the government lot, Lahla and passed the timber less in its volume. But it is the prosecution case that in the 9 government lot 324 trees were felled and converted into timber. Passing register Ex PW-17/B shows that 3102 converted scants as against 3117. But to prove this fact, the person who could have proved this fact was either Inspector Swaran Singh who was not examined or some forest officer with authenticated record, but there is no such evidence to substantiate this charge. 17. Further, the statement of PW-26, S.K. Saxena, Government Examiner is also of no help to the prosecution as in most of the items, he could not express any definite opinion and with respect to some of the items, corroborating evidence is lacking and his sole uncorroborated testimony does not prove the guilt of the respondents in any manner. 18. Therefore, on the scrutiny of the above evidence, we do not find any cogent evidence to link the timber in question with the illicit origin or corresponding to the government lot and circumstances also do not make out a case that the document in question was forged by the respondents in any way. 19. Since the prosecution failed to prove its case in accordance with law, i.e. beyond reasonable doubt, as such, the acquittal of the respondents cannot 10 be interfered with. The appeal filed by the State sans merit and accordingly is dismissed. The respondents are discharged of their bail bonds executed by them during the pendency of the appeal. ( R.B.Misra), J. ( Surinder Singh ), J. 1st April, 2011(sl)