HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr.A.No. 349 of 1999. Reserved on: 21.5.2008. Decided on: 26.6.2008. State of H.P. ………Appellant. Versus Bhupinder Singh and another ……Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the appellant: Mr.J.S. Guleria, Law Officer. For the respondents: Mr.Ajay Kochhar, Advocate. V.K. Ahuja, J: This is an appeal filed by the State of H.P. against the judgment of the court of learned Special Judge (Forest), Shimla, dated 19.6.1999, vide which both the respondents were acquitted of the charge under Sections 120-B, 218 of the IPC, Section 5(2) and 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 and under Rules 11 and 18/20 of the H.P. Forest Produce Transit (Land Routes) Rules, 1978 against appellant Amrit Singh and charge under Section 120-B read with Rules 11 and 18/20 of the H.P. Forest Produce Transit (Land Routes) Rules, 1978 punishable under Section 20 of the said rules was made out against respondent Bhupender Singh. ________________ 1.Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - Briefly stated the facts of the case are that during investigation and checking of record in case FIR No.17/84, dated 29.8.1984, registered under Sections of Forest Act as well as under Prevention of Corruption Act, the record of Railway Station, Summer Hill was checked by the Enforcement Department. It was revealed that M/s Ramesh and Company of Churag issued export permit for 1050 scants, which was valid upto 31.3.1982, but the Firm exported 1420 scants and thus, they exported 377 scants in excess than what was permitted to be exported. It was revealed that the Firm exported the timber from Summer Hill Railway Station after expiry of the permit and the Firm had also exported certain scants without permit in connivance with th e Railway officials and accordingly, the case was registered. After investigation, it was found that the scants were exported in excess and the Railway officials had misused their official position and they prepared wrong and incorrect record to cause pecuniary gain to the accused and as such, after the investigation, the challan was filed before the learned trial Court, who framed charges as against the appellants, as mentioned above. The third accused against whom the challan was filed was granted pardon on his application and was made approver while R.M. Dua, Railway Officer, died during the trial and only present respondents were charged and tried by the learned trial Court. During the trial of the case, the prosecution examined 50 witnesses and also placed on record certain documents. The submissions made by the learned Law Officer were that it was established from the evidence led by the prosecution that the timber had been exported in excess of the export permit and some of the timber was exported - 3 - even after the expiry of the permit. It was also submitted that these permits were not endorsed to the railway authorities but they permitted the export of the timber and the findings recorded by the learned trial Court leading to the acquittal of the respondents cannot be said to be correct and calls for an interference by this Court. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents had supported the judgment recorded by the learned trial Court by submitting that the prosecution had failed to prove that the timber was exported in excess or beyond the date of permit and the final conclusion arrived at by the learned trial Court on the basis of the evidence cannot be said to be perverse calling for an interference by this Court. The first question arises for determination before the learned trial Court was that in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy, 525 scants of timber were exported in excess. The second question which arises for consideration was that this timber was transported after the expiry of the permit and that these permits were not endorsed to the railway authorities, therefore, they could not have exported the timber. The allegations as against the respondents were that Amrit Singh and one R.M. Dua were posted as Station Master and Assistant Station Master, respectively, at Summer Hill Railway Station in the months of March and April, 1982 and they prepared incorrect record and transported 525 scants in excess as against the permit, which was issued for export of 1050 cheel scants. It is in evidence that PW-28 Rameshwar Ram has purchased 623 trees in private sale and after felling these trees, he converted them into scants and he took permit for export of 1050 scants vide permit No.61/CC/81-82, dated 12.3.1982, valid upto 31.3.1982. This timber was allegedly purchased by Bhupinder Singh. - 4 - PW-6 Avtar Singh, approver, when he stepped into the witness box had not supported the prosecution story regarding criminal conspiracy, but rather he contradicted his statement in material particulars made by him at the time of tendering of pardon. He stated that he was employed at Railway Station, Summer Hill when Amrit Singh accused was posted as Station Master. He also stated that certain forwarding notes used to be filled in by him and railway receipts have been issued in respect of consignment by Amrit Singh and R.M. Dua. He has identified the signatures of R.M. Dua, now dead, on the railway receipts Exts.PF, PF/1 to PF/6 and that railway receipt Ext.PF/7 was issued by Amrit Singh. He stated that the payment was received by Bhupinder Singh for 1575 scants, but no other details were furnished by him. He admitted that no payment was made to Bhupinder Singh by any of the Firms in his presence. The statement of this approver was discussed in detail by the learned trial Court in paras 18 to 21 and I do not feel it necessary to repeat the discussion. It was held that these forwarding notes were filled in by Bhupinder Singh and his signatures have been forged by Bhupinder for that of another person. The learned Law Officer has not submitted that the conclusions drawn on the basis of discussion of the statement of this approver are incorrect. Coming to the question about the excess scants exported from Railway Station , PW-6 Avtar Singh stated that 525 scants were exported in excess. PW- 20 K.C. Nandwani has stated that 1420 scants, as per railway receipts, have been exported from Railway Station, Summer Hill, but the perusal of the railway receipts shows that the number of scants are not mentioned in all the receipts Ext.PF-2 to Ext.PF-7, Ext.PA-1 and Ext.PB-1. Thus, according to these - 5 - documents, the total number of scants exported, as per the bills, comes to 1140 i.e. 90 scants have been shown in excess. PW-20 K.C. Nandwani has stated that 1420 scants exported i.e. 370 scants were exported in excess but the prosecution story is that 525 scants were exported in excess which does not tally with the figures stated by the other prosecution witnesses. PW-20 K.C. Nandwani had admitted in his statement that in order to avoid uneven loading and to use the wagon to its full capacity, sometimes the scants are cut into pieces. In that eventuality, the number of scants increases but its volume remains the same. However, this version does not prove that the volume of scants exported also exceeded for which export permit had been taken. It is in evidence of PW-20 K.C. Nandwani and PW-3 M.S. Siddiqui, Commercial Inspector from the Railways, that there is procedure for booking of goods from the Railway Station. An indent is placed by the forest lessee or his authorized agent and forwarding note is filled in giving details of the timber with quality, quantity etc. and the same is presented to the Station Master and in case the contents of the forwarding note are found correct, the same are entered in the priority register and the demand is placed for the supply of wagon to DRM Office Ambala. The wagon is supplied on priority basis and then the timber is exported. The validity of the permit, as per the evidence, has to be seen not at the time of actual transportation, as per availability of wagon, but at the time of booking of the goods. Once the prosecution has not established that the booking was done beyond the date of expiry of permit, it cannot be said that in case actual transportation was done thereafter it can lead to the inference that the timber was exported after the expiry of validity of the timber. - 6 - The learned trial Court has referred to Rule 18 of the Transit Rules, 1978, which reads as under: “18. Bar on booking of Forest produce by rail:- No person shall offer any forest produce for export by rail on any railway station within Himachal Pradesh unless it is covered by a pass issued under these rules. Nor will the Railway authorities accept any forest produce for transport by rail unless accompanied by a valid pass.” The plea was raised by the State during the course of arguments before the learned trial Court that the permit was not endorsed to the Railway Station Authorities and, therefore, there was violation of Transit Rules. However, according to the procedure, in case there are some restrictions on export of permit through the railways, the State Government has to notify the railway authorities and there is nothing on record to show that any intimation was sent to the railway authorities not to export the timber. On the other hand, the statement of PW-20 K.C. Nandwani, during cross examination, shows that permit in question had been endorsed exclusively for Station Master, which clearly clinches the issue that the timber was not exported through the railways without there being a direction to the railway authorities. The learned trial Court had referred to the relevant rules at page 26 of the judgment which shows that the railway officials are bound by the instructions if they are conveyed by the Central/State Government and there is nothing that these were conveyed to the railway authorities, rather the evidence led is otherwise. It is not necessary for this Court to again discuss the evidence and reproduce the same in its own words. During the course of arguments, a reference was made to the decision of this Court given by Hon’ble Mr.Justice C.K. Thakker, the then Chief Justice of this High Court, presently a Judge of Supreme - 7 - Court in Criminal Appeal No. 261 of 1997, titled State of H.P. v. Gian Singh Chauhan and another, decided on similar facts on 12.1.2001. In that case, a similar question arose in regard to export of excess timber and beyond the date of expiry by the railway authorities. The Hon’ble Judge had not considered it necessary to again discuss the evidence in his own words when the observations made were not in dispute and had accordingly referred and reproduced many of the paras of the judgment given by the learned Special Judge and had concluded that the findings of the learned Special Judge cannot be said to be contrary to law or inconsistent with the evidence on record and materials placed before the court. I have mentioned this to show that it is not necessary to reproduce the evidence in detail when nothing has been shown that the observations made were incorrect. The learned counsel for the respondents had also referred to the decision of this Court in Criminal Appeal No.175 of 1991, titled Nathu Singh and another v. State of H.P., decided on 3.12.1996. In that case, there were allegations that 33 pieces of timber had been exported in excess. However, it was held by this Court on the basis of the evidence that to cover the entire space of the wagon and to ensure even and proper loading, scants were often cut into pieces and that could have been the cause of increase in the numerical quantity. It was held that in the face of such evidence, it could not be said that any offence had been committed or that timber had been exported in excess of the quantity mentioned in the permit. It was held in that case that it was incumbent upon the prosecution to have proved that the timber exported was in excess volume-wise and not numerically. - 8 - From the above detailed discussion, it is clear that during the course of arguments no such evidence, oral or documentary, was pointed out by the learned Law Officer, which was not considered by the learned trial Court or was wrongly considered in coming to its conclusion that the guilt of the respondents was not established beyond any reasonable doubt. In view of the above discussion, it is clear that the findings recorded by the learned trial Court holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the respondents cannot be said to be perverse calling for an interference by this Court and as such there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant/State of H.P., which is dismissed accordingly. The bail bonds furnished by the respondents stand discharged. June 26, 2008 (V.K. Ahuja), (TILAK) Judge.