IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Appeal No.321 of 2008 Date of decision : March 7, 2011 State of H.P. ….Appellant Versus Daulat Ram and another …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant : Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General and Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. For the Respondents: Mr. Romesh Verma, Advocate. Surjit Singh, Judge(Oral) State has appealed against the judgment dated 15th March, 2008 of learned Special Judge, whereby respondents Daulat Ram and Nain Singh, who were charged with and tried for offences, under Sections 120-B and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, stand acquitted. 2. Respondent Daulal Ram was employed as Block Officer and posted in Sarahan range. DPF Khagna Compartment-II, which fell in the said forest range, was required to be taken care of by him. Respondent Nain Singh, who is a resident of that area, had been allotted Deodar tree of Class IIB category, vide Permit Ex. PI, in April, 2001. That tree was marked by respondent Daulat Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… Ram, Block Officer, in the presence of PW-7 Mansha Ram, Forest Guard. PW-7 Mansha Ram allegedly pointed out to respondent Daulat Ram that the tree was oversized, but he brushed off his objection. 3. On 2nd December, 2001, when PW-11 Rajinder Prasad, Inspector Enforcement, was in the area of the aforesaid forest, he came to know that a tree of larger girth than the tree actually allotted to respondent Nain Singh had been felled. He immediately went to the spot, in the company of Mehar Singh, Block Officer, Sarahan and Mansha Ram, Forest Guard, of that beat. In the presence of Mansha Ram, Forest Guard, girth of the stump of the felled tree was measured, which was found to be 85/93 cm. Timber extracted from the tree was lying on the spot. It was measured and found to be 4.155 cubic metres. The tree, the stump of which was measured, bore No.31 engraved on it, by means of a hammer. 4. PW-11 Rajinder Prasad, Inspector, got the case formally registered, vide FIR Ex. PW-9/B. During the course of investigation, permit Ex. PI was taken into possession. On completion of investigation, sanction to prosecute respondent Dault Ram, Block Officer, was obtained and challan was filed in the Court of Special Judge, who, after complying with the requirement of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, charged …3… the respondents with the aforesaid offences. Respondents pleaded not guilty and, therefore, they were put on trial. 5. Respondents took the plea that the tree, which found felled on the spot, was different from the one which had been allotted to Nain Singh and that as a matter of fact, on the spot the felled tree was of 1-A category, which had been allotted to some other person, under TD Scheme. 6. Trial Court acquitted the respondents, holding that the defence plea is probabilized by prosecution’s own evidence. 7. I have heard learned Assistant Advocate General and learned counsel for the respondents and gone through the record. 8. Permit Ex. PI, which was issued in favour of respondent Nain Singh, shows that the tree, which had been sanctioned to him and marked in the forest, bore No.4. Number assigned to the allotted tree is embossed on the tree, by means of a hammer. It is prosecution’s own case that the number, which was embossed on the stump, was 31. That means the tree, with respect to which PW-11 Rajinder Prasad, made the report and got the measurement done, on the spot from Mansha Ram, vide Memo Ex. PW-1/B, was different from the one allotted to respondent Nain Singh. 9. PW-11 Rajinder Prasad himself admitted, in his testimony in the Court that Tree No.31 was of 1-A …4… category, as per permit. That means category of Tree No.31 was higher than that of even 1-C category, of which the stump was available on the spot, per memo Ex. PW- 1/B. In view of the abovestated position, no fault can be found with the judgment of acquittal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. March 7, 2011(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J