IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. A No. 228 / 2003 Judgment reserved on 11.5.2010 Date of decision: 13. 5. 2010 State of H.P. ….Appellant Versus Sukhdev Singh and another ……Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 For the Appellant: Mr. J.S. Rana, Assistant Advocate General. For the respondent : Mr. R.K. Gautam, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Mehar Chand,, Advocates. Surinder Singh J. (Oral) Respondents herein were convicted under Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act and Rule 20 framed there under, and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- with default clause. In appeal learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solan in criminal appeal No. 7/NL/10 of 1999 set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence, and 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?. yes - 2 - acquitted them vide his detailed judgment, passed on 14.3.2003, which has been assailed in this appeal by the State. 2. Heard and gone through the record. 3. Forty five number of Partal wood was allegedly purchased vide cash memo Ext.P1 on 6.10.1995 by the respondents from Pinjore for its use at Nalagarh. According to the prosecution case, PW9 Gurmeet Singh was present along with police official near the Factory of ‘Gounterman Piper Limited’ at Rajpura. He noticed the tractor bearing registration No. HP-12-4566, carrying the timber while going inside the factory. It was checked in the factory premises. It was containing 45 number of partal (wood) in its trolley. Hukam Singh respondent was the driver of the tractor and respondent Sukhdev was along with him. They could not produce the transit permit. Thus, the wood was seized vide memo Ext. PW1/A. Ruka was sent for registration of the case which culminated into the FIR Ext. PB. The case property was seized vide seizure memo Ext. PW5/A. - 3 - 4. After completing the investigation, challan was presented in the Court for the trial of the respondents. 5. Notice of accusation was put to the respondents. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 6. Prosecution examined its witnesses and respondents were also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal procedure. The defence of the respondents was that it was not illegal timber and no transit permission was required. At the end of the trial, they were convicted and sentenced as aforesaid and in appeal, learned Additional Sessions Judge, acquitted the respondents on the ground that there was no rule framed to import the timber from out side State to the State of H.P. Further, the movement of the timber was not detected. The Tractor was parked inside the factory and timber was not in transit and the source was legal. 7. In so far as the first observation of the learned Additional Sessions Judge with respect to the fact that there was no rule framed by the State Government for bringing the timber from out side - 4 - to the State of H.P. is concerned, that is incorrect. In fact, the H.P. Forest Transit Rules, 1978, also has the provision and takes care of the timber even brought in and taken out side State of H.P. Therefore, this observation of the learned is not correct. 8. In so far as other aspect of the case is concerned, PW5 Rajeev Garg admitted that the timber was purchased from him. It was sawn. This fact was also corroborated by PW3 Nand Lal. He also stated that no export permit or licence was required to take it to the State of H.P. because its source was legal. He proved the bill /cash memo against which it was purchased. He had also charged 10% sales tax as shown in Bill. 9. According to PW2 Sanjay Kumar, he had seen the tractor parked inside the factory. 10. Admittedly, it is not a stolen property but there is no cogent evidence that the said timber was caught when it was in transit from Pinjore to Nalagarh. The sole testimony of PW Gurmeet Singh is not confidence inspiring. Therefore, in the circumstances, in my opinion, provisions of Section 41 and 42 of the Forest Act would not apply. As - 5 - such the appeal is without any merit hence, dismissed. May 13 , 2010 (Surinder Singh),J (cm)