IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.Rev. No. 48 of 2003 Date of judgment: November 23, 2009, Inder Singh Petitioner Versus State of H.P. Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajay Chandel, Advocate, For the Respondent : Mr.Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. Surjit Singh, J. (Oral) Revision petitioner has challenged his conviction and sentence for an offence, under Section 379 IPC, recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate and upheld by the first Appellate Court (Sessions Judge), Kangra at Dharamshala. 2. Allegations on which the revision petitioner was tried for the aforesaid offence are like this. In the year 1991, one 1A tree of Duri species had been sanctioned under Timber Distribution Scheme in favour of Govind Singh, the father of the revision petitioner, who did not fell the tree within the time mentioned in the permit. An application was moved for extension of time. During the pendency of that application, the tree was felled by the revision petitioner and converted into Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - logs. He had engaged PW-4 Padru Ram, PW-5 Chaukas Ram and PW-6 Sher Singh for felling the said tree. 3. Prosecution examined the aforesaid witnesses in the Court. They testified that the revision petitioner had engaged them for felling the tree. The revision petitioner denied that he had engaged the above named person for felling the tree or that he got the tree converted into logs from them. 4. Learned trial Magistrate, vide judgment dated 30.7.2001, convicted the revision petitioner and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-; in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one month. Appeal filed by the revision petitioner before Sessions Judge, Kangra, stands dismissed, vide judgment dated 20.3.2003. 5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner as also the learned Assistant Advocate General and gone through the record. 6. Testimony of the above named three witnesses clearly establishes that it was the revision petitioner, who had felled the tree and got it converted into logs. Therefore, I see no scope for interfering with the conviction of the revision petitioner for the offence of committing theft of a tree standing on government land. However, taking into account the fact that there had been a permit in favour of the father of the petitioner to fell one tree under Timber Distribution Scheme and that the tree was felled in terms of that permit, though after the expiry of the period mentioned for felling the tree in that permit, I feel - 3 - that the offence committed by the revision petitioner is only of a technical nature. Therefore, the sentence awarded by the trial Court, as affirmed by the appellate Court, is modified and the revision petitioner is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- only; in default of payment of fine to undergo imprisonment for a period of 15 days. With the aforesaid modification in the sentence part of the judgment of the trial Court, revision petition is dismissed. November 23, 2009(ss) ( Surjit Singh), J.