IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 523 of 2003 Date of decision: 21.05.2010 State of Himachal Pradesh ... Appellant Versus Prem Lal and another … Respondents Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant: Mr. J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General. For the respondents: Mr. D.K. Sharma and Mr. Y. Paul, Advocates. V.K. Ahuja , J. (Oral): This is an appeal filed by the State of H.P. under Section 378 Cr.P.C. against the judgment of the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasauli at Solan, dated 15.5.2003, vide which the respondents were acquitted of the charge framed against them under Section 379 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 29.11.1990, at about 11.30 P.M., at Forest Check Post, Parwanoo, both the respondents were found transporting 41 Deodars slippers covered under gunny bags of apples in truck No. HIS-1992 without any valid permit from the forest department. Respondent No. 1 was allegedly the owner of the truck, respondent No. 2 was the conductor 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 of the truck, while the driver of the truck had ran away from the spot. The slippers were taken into possession and a case was registered. After investigation, the challan was filed before the learned trial Court, who tried the respondents for the offences as detailed above, leading to their acquittal. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 4. The case of the prosecution is that the vehicle was checked by PW-1 Sant Ram, Forest Guard, in presence of PW-3 Ishwar Dass, Range Officer, and one Deep Singh, forest official, at Parwanoo Barrier and during checking, it was found that 41 slippers of Deodar had been kept under the bags of apples. Out of these three witnesses, the prosecution had not examined Deep Singh for the reasons best known to it. PW-1 Sant Ram is the Range Officer, who had effected the recovery. He stated that the vehicle belonged to Prem Lal who was alongwith the vehicle, while the cleaner was also present there and the driver had run away. He stated that Prem Lal present in Court was the owner of the truck, who was apprehended at the spot. He also did not identify the cleaner or the accused present in Court as the cleaner of the truck. Admittedly, the driver had run away from the spot. In cross-examination, he has admitted that he took into possession the slippers vide recovery memo and the police had also prepared recovery memo. He admitted that the driver had gone to get the vehicle entered on the check post, but did not return and he cannot identify the said driver. He further stated that he was knowing the accused persons. The learned trial Court also observed that there were some over writing in the recovery memos Ext.PW1/B 3 and Ext. PW1/C. The labourers who allegedly unloaded the logs, slippers or the local persons present at that time, were not associated by the Range Officer. 5. PW-3 Ishwar Dass, Forest Guard, was also a member of the party that he apprehended the truck and effected the recoveries. He has proved the confessional statement Ext. PW3/B of Prem Lal, which cannot be legally red in evidence since it does not lead to any recovery. He stated that at the spot, the vehicle and slippers were taken into possession. Thereafter, the police also came to the spot and took into possession the truck, slippers and bags of apples. He admitted that many persons were present at the Barrier when the vehicle came there. He stated that no proceedings were conducted in the Rest House where the slippers were taken. He is not aware as to where the slippers were kept after unloading, though he is a witness to the recovery of the slippers and as such, should have been aware as to where the slippers were kept after unloading. He is also not aware if the slippers were unloaded in his presence. He admitted that in the Range office that the slippers of many cases were lying, but cannot say that if their number was 500. He has also not identified the accused persons being present at the spot from whom the recoveries were effected. Investigating Officer in this case Rachpal Singh has not been examined by the prosecution and as such, the learned trial Court had not believed the prosecution story in view of the infirmities in the case keeping in view the over writings made and the fact that both the accused persons were not identified by the witnesses when examined in Court. 4 6. The net conclusion that can be drawn from the above discussion is that the findings of the learned trial Court holding that the prosecution had failed to prove their case beyond any reasonable doubt cannot be termed as perverse, calling for an interference by this Court. 7. In view of the above discussion, I accordingly hold that there is no merit in the appeal filed by the State of H.P. and as such, the same is liable to be dismissed, which is dismissed. The bail bonds furnished by the respondents shall stand discharged. ( V.K. Ahuja ), May 21, 2010 Judge (BSS) 5