IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr.A. No. 132 of 2004. Decided on: 9.7.2010. ___________________________________________________________ State of H.P. … Appellant. Versus Raghubir Singh and others. … Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellant : Mr. Anil Jaswal, Deputy Advocate General. For the Respondents : Mr. Chaman Negi, Advocate. ___________________________________________________________ V.K. Sharma , J. (Oral). The State is in appeal against the judgment dated 25.9.2003 of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P. in case No. 108/3 of 01/97, titled State of Himachal Pradesh versus Raghubir Singh and others, whereby the respondents herein, who shall hereinafter be referred to as ‘accused’ were tried for the offences under Sections 41/42 of the Indian Forest Act and were ultimately acquitted. 2. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that during the night intervening 19/20.5.1997 at about 12.30 a.m., the forest officials noticed one truck bearing registration No. HPN-2305 carrying ‘Khair’ logs in R.F. Danda, C-16 forest. They became suspicious as one motor cycle came from the house of one Laxman Singh, resident of Amboya and stopped near the truck. The accused were found in the truck while transporting ‘Khair’ wood. Shri Kashmiri Lal, Forest Guard (PW-3) checked the truck and demanded permit for transportation of the ‘Khair’ wood. However, 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 the accused could not show any permit and ran away from the spot scene. It was in such circumstances that the occurrence is stated to have been reported to the senior forest officials. Consequently, the truck was intercepted at Kala Amb Barrier. It was brought back to Paonta Sahib. The truck along with its documents and ‘Khair’ wood was taken into possession by the police. On the basis of the complaint made by the forest officials, formal FIR was registered. It was found that seized ‘Khair’ wood was belonging to M/s Shiv Shakti Trading Company, which was having a sale depot of forest timber at Amboya. 3. On completion of investigation, the accused were sent up to face trial. On being charged, they did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution evidence followed. It has examined eight witnesses in all. 4. On close of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein their case was that of denial simpliciter, innocence and false implication. In defence, they have examined two witnesses. On conclusion of the trial, all the accused were acquitted, as already noticed. 5. I have heard the learned Deputy Advocate General for the appellant-State and learned counsel for the respondents- accused and perused the record. 6. The case of the prosecution is that the accused were transporting ‘Khair’ wood in violation of the provisions of Rule 13 of H.P. Forest (Sale of Timber) Rules, 1969, which is as under: “No timber shall be removed from any registered depot unless accompanied by a form of receipt prescribed by the Government.” 3 7. Precisely, the alleged violation was that ‘Khair’ wood was being transported in the aforesaid truck without a valid permit issued under Rule 13 of the Rules, supra. However, though all the material prosecution witnesses have made depositions in support of the prosecution case, yet even from their cross-examination as also the evidence led by the accused in their defence, it is more than clear that in fact there was no violation of the Rules, supra as it is established on record that bills Ext. PW-8/E, Ext. PW-8/F and Ext. PW-8/G were in fact in the nature of valid permits for transportation of the ‘Khair’ wood in question within the State of Himachal Pradesh. The reasons to arrive at this inference are set out hereinafter. 8. The Investigating Officer, PW-8 ASI Ram Singh has admitted that the ‘Khair’ wood seized in this case was not stolen property. It is also not the case of the prosecution that it was property of the Government. He has further admitted that ‘Khair’ wood was sold by M/s Shiv Shakti Trading Company, Kala Amb, vide receipt Ext. PW-8/E, meaning thereby that it was the property of M/s Shiv Shakti Trading Company, a registered forest sale depot, which had sold the same to M/s Sagar Katha Factory, Kala Amb. 9. PW-5 Tulsi Ram Chauhan has admitted during cross- examination that bills Ext. PW-8/E, Ext. PW-8/F and Ext. PW-8/G were issued by M/s Shiv Shakti Trading Company, Amboya. He has further admitted that it was on the basis of these documents that ‘Khair’ wood was being transported. In further cross- examination, he has categorically admitted that a registered private sale depot holder is legally competent to transport timber within the State of Himachal Pradesh on the basis of form ‘A’. 4 10. DW-1 Sudesh Kumar, Junior Assistant, office of D.F.O., Taruwala, Paonta Sahib has proved letter dated 26.7.1995, Ext. DA issued by D.F.O., Paonta Sahib to R.O., Paonta with a copy to one Shri Kundan Lal, a registered sale depot holder on the subject “export of Khair wood”. The letter specifically intimated that office of D.F.O. is not competent to issue export permit of ‘Khair’ wood out of circle. It has been further stated that registered sale depot holder can sell the produce on bill basis within the State of Himachal Pradesh. It being so, letter Ext. DA issued by D.F.O., Paonta Sahib is sufficient to establish that bills Ext. PW-8/E, Ext. PW-8/F and Ext. PW-8/G were valid documents for transportation of ‘Khair’ wood in this case. 11. DW-2 Shri Rajinder Parsad was registered as a sale depot holder, vide registration certificate Ext. DB. He had executed general power of attorney, Ext. DC, in favour of accused No.1, Raghubir Singh. 12. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, it can be safely concluded that the prosecution was not able to bring home guilt against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the findings to this effect returned by the learned trial Court, vide the impugned judgment dated 25.9.2003 do not call for any interference at the hands of this Court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. (V.K. Sharma) Judge. July 9, 2010. (cr)