IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No.190 of 2002 Date of Decision: July 21, 2009 State of H.P. ..Appellant. Versus Nathu Singh & Ors. …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. For the Respondents : Mr. Ajay Kochhar, Advocate, for Respondents 1 & 4. Mr. Jeevesh Sharma, Advocate, for respondent 2. Ms. Seema Guleria, Advocate vice Mr.Kuldeep Guleria, Advocate, for Respondent 3. Surjit Singh, J. (Oral) State is aggrieved by the judgment dated 7.11.2001 of the learned Special Judge (Forests), whereby respondent Nathu Singh, working as Station Master, Shogi, at the relevant time, respondent Kirpa Ram, one of the partners of M/s Bhim Singh Kirpa Ram, respondent Om Prakash, Loading and unloading Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - Agent at Chopal and Ramesh Kumar, Commission Agent, who were tried for offences, under Sections 379, 420, 12—B and 218 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, have been acquitted. Case of the prosecution, which led to the trial of the above-named respondents, may be noticed. In the year 1981, a firm of forest lessees, named and styled as M/s Bhim Singh Kirpa Ram, of which respondent No.2 is a partner, had extracted timber from some forest after obtaining necessary permission, from the concerned departments. The total number of scants extracted by the firm was 872. Vide permit dated 18.12.1981 Ex.PW3/A, the firm had been permitted to export the aforesaid number of scants by railways. The timber was to be exported from Railway Station, Shogi to Yamunanagar and Jagadhari. Respondent Nathu Singh was working as Station Master, Shogi, during - 3 - those days. Allegations against the respondents are that against the permitted number of 872 scants, they exported 1103 scants, per RRs Exts. PW23/A, PW23/A2, PW23/A4, PW23/A6, PW23/A8, PW23/A11 and PW23/A12. The timber had been loaded in wagons by respondent Om Prakash. Respondent No.4 Ramesh Chand, acted as Commission Agent, in exporting the timber. It is also the case of the prosecution that 270 scants were exported after the expiry of the permit Ex.PW3/A, against railway receipts Exts.PW23/A8, PW23/A11 and PW23/A12. Corresponding forwarding notes of these RRs are Exts.PW23/A9, PW23/A10 and PW23/A13. These forwarding notes were filled-in by respondent Om Prakash, Loading Agent. Dates are not mentioned on these notices except Ex.PW23/A10 on which date 8.1.82, is written at one place. According to the prosecution, all the four accused conspired to cause unlawful gain to themselves - 4 - and unlawful loss to the State by exporting timber, in excess of the quantity, mentioned in the permit and in furtherance of that conspiracy, respondent Nathu Singh, abused his position as a government servant and committed offence under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, while other accused committed offences, under Section 379, 218, 420 IPC and Section 42 of the Indian Forest Act. Learned Special Judge, charged the respondents with the aforesaid offences and ordered their trial, when they pleaded not guilty. Prosecution examined a number of witnesses and also proved various documents to bring the charge home to the respondents. Respondents denied that they had hatched any criminal conspiracy or any offence was committed by them. They took the plea that while loading the timber in wagons, some scants are required to be cut for proper adjustment and packing and it is because of - 5 - this that often the number of scants actually exported exceeds the number of scants mentioned in the permit. They admitted that 270 scants of timber were carried by train after 31.12.1981, the date on which the permit expired. According to them, such date has nothing to do with the actual carriage of the timber by railways and the date is relevant only for bringing the timber to the railway yards and its booking with the railways for carriage and this, according to them, had been done within the validity period of the permit. Learned trial Court believed the respondents’ verson and acquitted all of them. I have heard the learned Assistant Advocate General, as also the learned counsel for the respondents and gone through the record. PW17 Lal Singh, Investigating Officer of the case, admitted in no uncertain terms that investigation conducted by him, indicated that no timber in excess of the permitted quantity had crossed any forest check - 6 - post between the point, from where the timber started and the Railway Station, Shogi. PW5 K.C.Nandwani, a Railway Vigilance Inspector, who conducted inquiry into the matter, also admitted that scants of timber are often made into pieces for their proper adjustment and compact loading in the wagons and because of this, the number of scants normally exceeds the number mentioned in the permit. PW3 Gurcharan Singh, Railway Station Master, also made a similar statement. Investigating officer of the case, admitted that he did not conduct any investigation to find out the total volume of the exported timber and, therefore, he was not in a position to say whether the volume of 1103 scants exported was equal to the volume of 872 scants permitted to be exported by PW3. In view of the above-stated evidence of the prosecution itself, I find no error in the conclusion drawn by the learned trial Court that the charge of - 7 - export of timber in excess of the quantity permitted by export permit Ex.PW3/A, does not stand established. As regards the allegation, that 270 scants were exported, after the expiry of permit, it has been admitted by PW17 Lal Singh, Investigating officer of the case, that the entire timber permitted to be exported, had crossed the check post falling between the starting point and the railway station, before the expiry of the permit, meaning thereby that the entire timber reached the railway station on or before the expiry of the permit. It has been admitted by PW5 K.C.Nandwani, Railway Vigilance Inspector, as also PW3 Gurcharan Singh, that validity of the export permit is relevant only for the purpose of booking of the timber with the railways and not the actual carriage. PW17 Lal Singh’s testimony shows that the entire timber reached the Railway Station, Shogi, before the expiry of the permit. - 8 - Forwarding notes Exts. PW23/A9, PW23/A10 and PW23/A13, are undated and, therefore, it cannot be said that the booking against these notes was done subsequent to 31.12.1981, the date upto which the permit Ex.PW3/A was valid. So, the finding of the learned Special Judge with respect to the second allegation also does not call for interference. In view of the above stated position, appeal is dismissed, being devoid of merit. July 21, 2009. (Surjit Singh), J s