IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. Revision No. 5 of 2010 Date of Decision: 27th August, 2010 __________________________________________________________ Kanihya Lal & others ….Petitioners. Versus State of H.P. ….Respondent. __________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. __________________________________________________________ For the Petitioners: Mr. G.R. Palsara, Advocate. For the Respondent: Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. Advocate General with Mr. R.K. Thakur, Asstt. Advocate General. __________________________________________________________ Dev Darshan Sud, J (oral). The petitioners have been sentenced by the two Courts below for offences under Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned trial Court acquitted the petitioners under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, but convicted them for violation of Rule 11 punishable under Rule 20 of the Himachal Pradesh Forest Produce Transit (Land Route) Rules, 1978 framed under 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 Section 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act. This sentence has been affirmed by the learned appellate Court. 2. The facts as stated are that on 5.3.2002 during night hours HC Jagat Ram alongwith HHC Daler Khan No. 491, C. Bihari Lal No. 137 and C. Om Parkash No. 393 were present at Naka at Kandha in Government van bearing No. HP-32-0150, with its driver Lekh Raj. A number of vehicles were intercepted at the Naka. At about 6AM on 6.3.2002 a white coloured Maruti Van No. HP-01-0762 was stopped in which two of the accused were present alongwith the driver. On inspection, it was found that ten deodar scants of different sizes were lying in the van. 3. On the evidence on record, the learned trial Court accepted the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and convicted the petitioners for violation of Rule 11 punishable under Rule 20 of the Himachal Pradesh Forest Produce Transit (Land Route) Rules, 1978 framed under Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act and held that offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out. In appeal, this sentence has been confirmed. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners relies upon the decision of this Court in State of H.P. vs. Gurpal Ram and others Latest HLJ 2007(HP) 2010 to urge that if the timber is transit within the same revenue estate, no permit is required. This argument is rejected since there is no evidence on record as to whether the timber was transit within the same revenue estate/area. Even in the statements under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure all the petitioners have denied any knowledge of conscious possession of the timber. 3 5. Learned counsel, on the question of sentencing, submits that in terms of Rule 20 of the Himachal Pradesh Forest Produce Transit (Land Route) Rules, 1978, the sentence of imprisonment is harsh as the Courts did not find the petitioners’ guilty of offences under Section 379 IPC. Considering the fact that only ten scants were seized and that the incident occurred in 2007, and a period of more than four years is elapsed, the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the petitioner is set aside. It is directed that each of them shall be liable to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- each. The fine shall be deposited before the trial Court within a period of six weeks from today. It is clarified that in case of non-deposit of fine, the sentence of imprisonment shall revive. I am of the view that forest offence should not be dealt with lightly. But in this case, the sentence of imprisonment has been reduced taking into consideration the peculiar circumstances of the case. This judgment is confined to is own facts and does not constitute as a precedent in other cases. Petition stands disposed of. August 27th , 2010 (Dev Darshan Sud) (ms) Judge