IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA. Cr.Appeal No. 83 of 2003. Date of Decision: 28.12.2009 State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus. Liaq Ram & Ors. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta,Judge. Whether approved for Reporting ? No For the appellant: Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra,Deputy Advocate General. For the Respondents: Mr. Mukul Sood,Vice counsel. Deepak Gupta,J.(Oral.) This appeal by the State is directed against the judgement dated 2nd September,2002 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan whereby he had acquitted the accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 41,42,33 of Indian Forest Act read with Section 379, 120-B Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 I.P.C. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 18.5.1993 a telephonic information was received in the Police Station, Dharampur that two trucks bearing registration No. HIS-7307 and HPA-1297 were carrying :-2: illicitly felled timber and were going from Shimla to Kalka. Truck No. HIS 7307 was intercepted near Dharampur. Accused Liaq Ram was driving the truck and accused Shyam Singh was sitting in next seat. According to the prosecution on searching the truck 43 timber scants of different sizes were recovered from the said truck. This timber was of Kail and Deodar variety. The timber was being transported without any export permit. 3. From the spot, ruka was sent to the police station on the basis of which FIR was registered and the timber was taken into possession. The various officials were then associated with the investigation who made list of the seized timber depicting the size and variety of the seized scants. According to the prosecution this timber had been illicitly felled from Government Forest by all the accused and accused Liaq Ram and Shyam Singh were illegally transporting the same. Hence, the present case. 4. The learned trial court acquitted the accused. Hence, the present appeal. Though, the prosecution examined as many as 22 witnesses, most of them turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. 5. The first point which the prosecution had to prove was that the timber was seized when the truck was intercepted. Admittedly, this was a case of prior information. In case of prior information there is nothing which prevented the officer in charge to constitute a team :-3-: in which some independent witnesses could have been associated as a part of the raiding party. Admittedly, this was not done. All the witnesses associated with the seizure of timber were chance witnesses. There is no explanation why the forest officials from Dharampur could not be associated at the time of interception of the truck itself. That would have lent support to the prosecution version. In the present scenario, the facts which emerge are that all the witnesses who have alleged to have been taken part in the search operation have not supported the prosecution case. According to the witnesses they were made to sign on the dotted line and no search had taken place in this presence. 6. It may be true that various forest officials have proved the fact that they prepared the lists, but the first question to be proved was where did the timber come from. The prosecution miserably failed to prove that this timber was seized from the truck in question. The prosecution has wasted a lot of time in leading evidence about the alleged illicit felling which had taken place at some other place. Unless, the prosecution first proves that it had seized the timber at the spot, there is no use of such evidence. Consequently, I am of the considered view that the learned trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused. There is no merit in the appeal which is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accursed are discharged. ( Deepak Gupta )J. December 28,2009. (Rita)