Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. Appeal No. 30 of 2003. Dated of Decision: March 11, 2010. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- State of H.P. …… Appellant. Versus Jagdish Chand and another. ……. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? Yes. For the Appellant : Mr. A.K. Bansal, Addl. Advocate General. For the Respondents : Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate. Surinder Singh, J. (oral): State felt aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal, passed by the learned trial Court, under Section 20 of Forest Transit (Land Roots) Rules, 1978 and Section 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, allegedly found transporting herbs, a forest produce, as such, filed the instant appeal on law and facts. Heard and gone through the record. In short, the prosecution case can be stated thus. On 15th July, 1996 at about 9.30 p.m, the forest officials headed by PW5 Range Officer Kishore Kumar, were on patrolling at Hathi-than at Bhunter- Manikaran road in Kullu district. They were informed by the Divisional Forest Officer telephonically that truck No.HP-34-2597 was coming from Manikaran side loaded with the forest produce. PW5 happened to come across the said truck to stop, but it did not stop. It was chased by - 2 - all the forest officials and also by the Divisional Forest Officer in his official Jeep No.HP-34-797. It was found parked at Bhuntar. Respondent No.1 Jagdish Chand was on the steering wheel of the truck alongwith some labourers sitting therein Respondent No.2 was sitting in the cabin of the truck. The forest officials found it loaded with 208 bags of herbs (non-timber forest produce). Respondents could not produce the permit or any permission for its transportation. Therefore, damage report Ex.PW3/A was chalked out. The case property was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW5/A. Later, after obtaining the orders of the Court, the alleged herbs were auctioned. The forest department through the Range Officer filed a complaint for the aforesaid offences, in the court against the respondents, for their trial. Finding a prima-facie case against the respondents, they were accordingly charge-sheeted. The respondents pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To prove its case, prosecution examined its witnesses and the respondents were also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Respondent Jagdish Chand denied the allegations, whereas, Khimi Ram respondent owned the loaded material to be his own, but explained that it was grown on his own land, it was not a forest produce. He produced the jamabandies of his land. PW1 Gurdayal Singh was the conductor of the aforesaid Truck. He stated that the truck was parked near Himalaya hotel at Bhuntar in front of Truck Union office when it was intercepted by the forest officials, thereafter brought to the forest division Shamshi. PW2 Ghanshyama Sharma was occupant of the vehicle, he travelled with Khimi Ram as his friend. He stated that the said material was loaded near Himalaya hotel. He was declared hostile, but he categorically - 3 - denied in the cross-examination that 208 bags of herbs found loaded in the truck, were to be taken to Amritsar. Statement of PW3 Ram Parsad is Deputy Ranger. He stated that the Divisional Forest Officer had intercepted the said truck, which was found loaded with the herbs. Pertinently, the Divisional Forest Officer in this case was not examined. From the evidence aforesaid, it stands proved that the truck was found with some material packed in 208 bags, but none stated as to what it was. Significantly, PW5 Kishore Kumar, Range Officer, who was also present there also could not identify what were the herbs, whether it fell within the definition of the “forest produce” within the meaning of the Act. Section 2(4) of the Act reads as under:- “ 2.(4) “forest-produce “ includes- (a) the following whether found in, or brought from, a forest or not, that is to say: (a) timber, charcoal, daoutchouc, catechu, wood-oil, resin, natural varnish, bark, lac, mahua flowers, mahua seeds, kuth and myrabolams, and (b) the following when found in, or brought from a forest, that is to say: (i) trees and leaves, flowers and fruits, and all other parts or produce not hereinabefore mentioned, of trees, (ii) Plants not being trees (including grass, creepers, reeds and moss), and all parts or produce of such plants, - 4 - (iii) Wild animals and skins, tusks, horns, bones, silk, cocoons, honey, and wax, and all other parts or produce of animals, and (iv) Peat surface soil, rock, and minerals (including lime-stone, latrite, mineral oil, and all products of mines or quarries)” The prosecution failed to prove that the respondents were transporting any material which was found in or brought from the forest in terms of above section. Thus, the respondents are entitled for the benefit of reasonable doubt. Therefore, in view of the above stated position and reasons, findings of acquittal, recorded by the learned trial court are reasonable, thus cannot be faulted. As such, appeal is without any merit and is accordingly dismissed. The respondents are discharged of the bail bonds entered upon by them at any stage during the produces of the case. The matter stands disposed of. Send down the records. March 11, 2010. (Surinder Singh) (Pds) Judge.