IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Revision No.175 of 2004 Date of decision : December 2, 2010 Gian Chand and another …Petitioners. Versus State of H.P. …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners : Mr. G.R. Palsara, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General and Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) Heard and gone through the record. 2. Petitioners are aggrieved by their conviction and sentence, for an offence, under Section 41 & 42 of the Indian Forest Act, read with Rule 20 of Himachal Pradesh Forest Produce Transit (Land Routes) Rules, 1978, as ordered by the trial Magistrate and affirmed by the Sessions Court, in appeal, vide judgment dated 21st September, 2004. 3. A reading of judgment of the Sessions Court shows that the learned Sessions Judge passed the judgment, without going through the evidence and without applying his mind to the facts of the case. According to the prosecution, forest produce was being transported, by land, without any licence or permit, in a Maruti Van bearing Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… registration No.HP-02-2220, which was being driven by petitioner Gian Chand. Second petitioner Narpat Ram was also on board the Van, when it was intercepted by the police. However, the learned Sessions Judge has repeatedly observed in his judgment that recovery was effected from the vehicle, bearing registration No.HID-7333, which was being driven by one Govind Ram, a co-accused of petitioner Narpat. Learned Sessions Judge appears to have not gone through the evidence, because it is not only that the number of the vehicle and the name of the man driving the vehicle are not correctly written in the judgment, but also the evidence of witnesses, who intercepted the vehicle and searched it and recovered the forest produce, has not been referred to in the judgment. 4. In view of the abovestated position, judgment dated 21st September, 2004 of the Sessions Court is set aside and the case is remanded to the Sessions Court, with a direction to decide the same afresh, according to law. Petition stands disposed of, accordingly. December 2, 2010(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J