IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Appeal No. 448 of 2002. Judgement reserved on: 26.3.2009. Date of decision: 2.4.2009. State of H.P. ….. Appellant. Vs. Vidya Ram & ors. …. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellant : Mr. A.K. Bansal, Addl. Advocate General. For the respondents : Mr. B.M. Chauhan, Advocate. Kuldip Singh, Judge. The acquittal of respondents recorded by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Kinnaur at Rekongpeo, on 7.12.2001 in Forest Complaint No. 19-3 of 2000, for offence punishable, under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (for short, the Act) has been assailed by the State in the present appeal. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 8.3.1999 PW 1 Kaul Singh, Forest Guard, alongwith Kartar Singh was patrolling in Compartment No. 151 D.P.F and found that respondents had cut one deodar tree of II-B class. The respondents were also having saw, axe and other implements. The respondents had converted the cut tree into logs and were sawing. The timber was seized after putting hammer marks, damage report Ex. PA was prepared. The Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… respondents confessed their guilt vide iqbalnama Ex. PB. The timber was handed over on sapurdari to PW 3 Bharat Bhushan, vide sapurdarinama Ex. PW 1/A. PW 2 Roop Lal Sharma, Block Officer conducted inquiry. PW 5 Basant Lal prepared the complaint and submitted in the court. The notice of accusation was put to respondents, under Section 33 of the Act, to which they pleaded not guilty. The prosecution has examined five witnesses and placed some documents on record. The statements of respondents were recorded, under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied the prosecution case, no evidence in defence was led. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate acquitted the respondents, hence this appeal. 3. Heard and perused the record. Ex. PA is the damage report in which Vidya Ram, Bhagcharan and Ram Lal have been named but in Ex. PA, there is no mention of logs, however, it has been stated therein that one accused has admitted the guilt without indicating the name of accused, who has admitted the guilt. Ex. PB is the iqbalnama allegedly signed by Vidya Ram, but in Ex. PB also there is no averment that Vidya Ram has admitted cutting of deodar II-B class tree and recovery of 26 logs. Ex. PW 2/A is the statement of Vidya Ram allegedly admitting that he had cut II-B class deodar tree. Ex. PW 1/A is the sapurdarinama of handing over of 26 logs. Ex.PW 2/D is the notification dated 25.2.1952 issued under Section 29 of the Act, Ex. PW 2/C is the copy of jamabandi for the year 1996-97 of land measuring 270.67 owned by State having forest in District Kinnaur. 4. The accusation against the respondent is for having committed an offence punishable, under Section 33 of the Act, which …3… provides penalties for contravention of notification, under Section 30 or of rules under Section 32. There is no allegation against the respondents that they have contravened any specific rule framed under Section 32 of the Act by the State. In these circumstances, the alleged offence committed by the respondents is the contravention of notification under Section 30 of the Act. On publication of notification, under Section 30, there is prohibition for removal of any forest produce from a forest, notified under Section 30. The notification under Section 30 is required to be translated in local vernacular and Collector is further under obligation to cause affixation of such translation in a conspicuous place in the neighbourhood of forest comprised in the notification, but no notification under Section 30 of the Act has been proved. 5. PW 1 Kaul Singh, Forest Guard has stated that on 8.3.1999, he was patrolling C-151 DPF, he met Kartar Singh on the way and found that respondents had cut II-B class deodar tree. The respondents were having saw, axe, they had converted the tree into two logs. He put hammer marks on the seized timber and also prepared damage report Ex. PA, iqbalnama Ex. PB. The tree was two kilometers inside the forest. On 17.3.1999, he again visited the spot with Block Officer, two logs were converted into 12 Karis and 14 sleepers, those were taken into possession and handed over to Bharat Bhushan on sapurdari vide sapurdarinama Ex. PW 1/A. In cross-examination, he has stated that when he visited with Block Officer, no respondent was on the spot. He has stated that Kartar Singh looks after the Nursery of Forest Department. PW 3 Roop Lal …4… Sharma, Block Officer has stated that on 17.3.1999, he visited the spot alongwith beat-guard Kaul Singh and on inquiry he found 26 Karis and sleepers on the spot, which were handed over to Bharat Bhushan vide sapurdarinama Ex. PW 1/A. He recorded the statements of respondents Ex. PW 2/A and Ex. PW 2/B. In cross examination, he has stated that on 17.3.1999, respondents were not on the spot. The respondents were called on 18.3.1999. He has stated that nobody other than Kartar Singh had seen the respondents cutting tree. 6. PW 3 Bharat Bhushan is a witness of sapurdarinama Ex. PW 1/A. PW 4 Kartar Singh has stated that on 8.3.1999 beat- guard took him to 151-B DPF. Ram Lal and Bhagcharan had told that Vidya Ram had engaged them on daily wages and the tree was cut by Vidya Ram. They had converted the tree into 26 logs and at the time of their visit to the spot 4-5 logs had already been sawn. PW 5 Basant Lal, Range Officer has stated that he filed complaint in the case. 7. The prosecution has not examined any witness, who has actually seen the respondents cutting II-B class deodar tree. The prosecution case is that respondents had cut the tree and converted the same into logs. PW 4 Kartar Singh has stated that respondents No. 2 and 3 were engaged by respondent No. 1 for cutting the tree. PW 1 Kaul Singh has stated that on 8.3.1999, the tree was converted into two logs and rest of work was in progress. He has also stated that on 17.3.1999, he again visited the spot and found that logs were converted into 12 Karis and 14 sleepers, in all 26 in number, which …5… were handed over by him to Bharat Bhushan on sapurdari. PW 3 Bharat Bhushan has stated that 26 logs of deodar tree were handed over to him on 27.3.1999 vide sapurdarinama Ex. PW 1/A. The statement of PW 3 Bharat Bhushan contradicts the statement of PW 1 regarding handing over of 26 logs to him. PW 4 Kartar Singh has stated that on 8.3.1999, he visited the spot and found that a deodar tree was converted into 26 logs. He has also stated that at that time 4-5 logs were already sawn. PW 4 has not stated that only on 17.3.1999 or thereafter he found that tree was converted into 26 logs. PW 1 has stated that iqbalnama Ex. PB was prepared on 8.3.1999. PW 2 has stated that he visited the spot on 17.3.1999 and recorded the statement Ex. PW 2/A. In cross examination, he has stated that respondents were called on 18.3.1999 and then recorded the statement. Thus PW 2 Roop Lal Sharma has contradicted himself regarding the statement Ex. PW 2/A. The prosecution has not associated any independent witness. PW 4 Kartar Singh looks after the Nursery of Forest Department, therefore, he cannot be said to be an independent witness. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has appreciated the material on record properly. No perversity in the impugned judgement has been pointed out. The prosecution has failed to make out any case for interference. 8. Resultantly, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. The bail bonds of respondents are discharged. April 2, 2009. ( Kuldip Singh ), (Hem) Judge.