IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Appeal No.439 of 2002 Date of decision : March 26, 2009 State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus Jagdish Singh and others …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1. For the appellant : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. Ramesh Thakur Assistant Advocate General. For the Respondents : Ms. Ranjana Parmar, Advocate. Surjit Singh, Judge (Oral) State has appealed against the judgment dated 28.6.2001 of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamba, whereby the respondents, who were charged with and tried for an offence, under Section 9 read with Section 14 of H.P. Forest (Sale of Timber) Rules, 1969, have been acquitted. 2. Prosecution story, as per record, is that on 13.12.1997, police received a secret information from some reliable source that the respondents, who have their sawmill at Dalhousie, had been indulging in sale of illicit timber and that 25 sleepers of Deodar were lying at their sawmill. Upon that PW-2 Trilok Prakash, a Police Officer, accompanied by some forest officials, including PW-1 Baldev Ram, Deputy Ranger, PW-5 Anil Kumar, Forest Guard and a police official, namely PW-6 Subhash Chand, went to the sawmill of the respondents. Twenty five sleepers of Deodar of various sizes were found lying in the Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… area of sawmill. The same were taken into possession. Respondents had not entered those sleepers in their register of timber. Matter was investigated and ultimately the respondents were challaned. 3. Respondents took the plea that the timber was not seized from their sawmill, but it was lying on the road at a distance of about 25-30 yards from their sawmill and it belonged to PW-4 Shyam Lal, upon whom the Enforcement Department imposed a fine Rs.1500/- and realized the said fine. 4. Learned trial Court believed the respondents’ version and acquitted them. 5. I have heard the learned Assistant Advocate General as also the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record. 6. There does not seem any reason for interfering with the order of acquittal of the respondents as passed by the trial Court. Reasons are that, not only PW-4 Shyam Lal, owner of the timber, claimed that the timber belonged to him and he had kept it by the road side at a distance of 25-30 metres from the sawmill of the respondents from where it was seized by the police, but his statement was corroborated by other witnesses of the prosecution, including a police officer, namely PW-6 Subhash Chand and PW-5 Anil Kumar, Forest Guard. PW-6 S.I. Subhash Chand, who investigated the case, stated that the timber, in question, belonged to PW-4 Shyam Lal. PW-5 Anil Kumar, who was a member of the search party, stated that the timber was lying by the side of the road and not in the premises of the sawmill of the respondents. He further stated that the timber belonged to PW-4 Shyam Lal and it was ultimately released in his favour, after he paid a fine of Rs.1500/- to the Enforcement people. There is no reason to …3… disbelieve the testimony of this witness, especially when the prosecution did not choose to cross-examine him. 7. In view of the above stated position, appeal is dismissed. March 26, 2009(ss) ( Surjit Singh ), J