IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No.499 of 2002 Date of decision : April 28, 2009 State of H.P. .. Appellant. Versus Rajesh Thakur and others .. Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1. For the appellant : Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General. For the Respondents : Mr. Adarsh K. Vashisth, Advocate, for respondents No.1 and 3 and Mr. K.S. Pathania, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Surjit Singh, Judge (Oral) This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment of trial Magistrate, whereby respondents Rajesh Thakur, Purshotam Dass and Prem Lal, who were sent up for trial for offences, punishable under Sections 41, 42 of the Indian Forest Act, Sections 120-B, 468, 471 IPC and Sections 192, 196 and 177 of the Motor Vehicles Act, have been acquitted. 2. Allegations on which the respondents were prosecuted for the aforesaid offences may be summed up thus. On 27.3.1999, PW-17 HC Joginder Singh, while on patrol duty near Lawasa Chowki in Sirmaur District, saw a truck bearing registration No. HP-06-0919, belonging to respondent Rajesh Thakur, parked by the side of the road. Purshotam Dass was present in the cabin of the truck. He claimed to be the driver of the truck. Truck was loaded with Khair wood. Respondent No.2 Purshotam Dass was required to produce the Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… papers/documents regarding transportation of the Khair wood, found loaded in the truck. He produced a permit Ext.PW10/A and a Parcha Hamrahi No.00003388 dated 25.3.1999, Ext.PW7/C. As per Parcha Hamrahi (accompanying slip), issued by Forest Guard Prem Lal, respondent No.3, herein, only 280 pieces of Khair wood were being carried in the truck. However, on physical checking it was found that there were 537 pieces of Khair wood of different sizes. Besides the Khair wood pieces, six gunny bags filled with Khair wood chips were also found. Respondent Purshotam Dass, the driver of the truck, told the police that the truck and the wood belonged to respondent No.1 Rajesh Thakur, who was accompanying the wood, but had gone to Nahan, leaving him and the truck on the spot. 3. Police seized the truck and the Khair wood and registered a case both against respondent Purshotam Dass and Rajesh Thakur. 4. After registration of the case, respondent Rajesh Thakur allegedly conspired with respondent Prem Lal, Forest Guard, who had issued Parcha Hamrahi Ext.PW7/C, to issue a supplementary Parcha Hamrahi, in respect of the pieces of Khair wood and six bags of Khair wood chips, found in excess of the number, mentioned in Ext.PW7/C, to enable him to get out the case registered against him and respondent Purshotam Dass. Respondent Prem Lal allegedly obliged respondent Rajesh Thakur by issuing another Parcha Hamrahi Ext.PW7/B and back dated that Parcha. Date put on that Parcha was 26.3.1999. He could not assign the date 25.3.1999 to this forged Parcha Hamrahi, because in between another Parcha had been issued from the book on 26.3.1999 in favour of some other person. 5. On completion of investigation all the three respondents were sent up for trial. Learned Magistrate charged them with the aforesaid offences. …3… 6. Prosecution examined 17 witnesses to bring the charge home to the respondents. Respondents took the plea that allegedly forged second Parcha Hamrahi Ext.PW7/B was with the driver, at the time when the truck and the wood were seized and that he had produced the same to PW-17 HC Joginder Singh, but the latter with a view to falsely implicating respondents Rajesh Thakur and Purshotam Dass, did not prepare any record of that Parcha and made a mention of only one Parcha i.e. Ext.PW7/C. Respondents explained why the need for second Parcha arose. According to them, when the truck was being loaded on 25.3.1999 at the site where wood had been stacked in Bilaspur District, it (the truck) developed some mechanical defect and, so, it had to be taken to a workshop, which was beyond Kandraur barrier in Bilaspur District and, therefore, a Parcha Hamrahi was prepared in respect of only 280 pieces/logs of Khair wood, which had by then been loaded. They pleaded that after getting the truck repaired, respondent Purshotam Dass took it back to the loading site and the remaining wood was then loaded and supplementary Parcha Hamrahi Ext.PW7/B was prepared. 7. Learned trial Court believed the defence version and acquitted the respondents. State felt aggrieved by this verdict of the trial Magistrate and filed the present appeal. 8. I have gone through the record and heard the learned Deputy Advocate General as also the learned counsel representing the respondents. 9. One of the reasons recorded by the trial Magistrate for believing the defence version is that even though supplementary Parcha Hamrahi Ext.PW7/B was produced by the police alongwith report, under Section 173 Cr. P.C, yet there was no record, indicating as to when it was taken into possession and from whom as no seizure …4… memo. had been prepared. The record of the trial Court supports this reasoning of the trial Magistrate. Not only this, I have noticed that though PW-17 HC Joginder Singh, the Investigating Officer of the case, stated that supplementary Parcha Hamrahi Ext.PW7/B was produced to him by respondent Rajesh Thakur on 21.4.1999, yet there is no mention of this fact even in the zimni (police diary), recorded on 21.4.1999, which means the explanation put forward by PW-17 Joginder Singh, in his testimony, is doubtful. 10. In the absence of any evidence from the side of the prosecution as to when, where, from whom and in what manner this supplementary Parcha Hamrahi came to be acquired by the police, there should be no reason to disbelieve the defence version that it was already with respondent Purshotam Dass on 27.3.1999, when the truck was intercepted and he handed it over to PW17 Joginder Singh HC. 11. Learned Deputy Advocate General submits that as per evidence on record, the truck crossed Kandraur barrier on 25.3.1999, but there was no entry in the register maintained at the said barrier, indicating that the truck went back to the loading site and again crossed the barrier on 26.3.1999. Kandraur barrier is meant for charging toll only. PW-17 Joginder Singh admitted that when toll is charged and receipt is issued in respect of a vehicle, that vehicle may cross the toll barrier any number of times within 24 hours. If that is so, there could not have been any other entry in respect of the truck, in question, within 24 hours of its first crossing the barrier on 25.3.1999 when toll was paid and entry made. Truck crossed the barrier, as per entry in the register at 6.45 PM on 25.3.1999. As per supplementary Parcha Hamrahi, remaining 257 pieces of Khair wood and six bags of Khair wood chips were loaded at 8.15 AM on 26.3.1999. The truck, as per weighment document Ext.PW16/A, reached Kumarhatti at 3.20 PM on 26.3.1999. …5… Kumarhatti is a place which can be reached after crossing Kandraur Barrier. That means truck crossed Kandraur barrier on 26.3.1999, much before 3.20 PM or say well within 24 hours of its first crossing the said barrier on 25.3.1999 at 6.45 PM. Thus the submission is without merit. 12. In view of the above stated position, I do not consider this to be a fit case for interfering with the judgment of acquittal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. April 28, 2009(ss) ( Surjit Singh ), J