IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No.99 of 2002 Date of decision: 31.12.2008 State of Himachal Pradesh Appellant Versus Rajinder Singh and others Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K.Ahuja,J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the appellant: Mrs.Subh Mahajan, Dy. Advocate General. For the respondent.: Mr.T.S.Chauhan, Advocate. V.K.Ahuja,J(oral). This appeal has been filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh against the judgment of the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Una dated 12.10.2001 vide which he accepted the appeal filed by the respondents against the judgment of the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Court No.II, Una dated 8.8.2000 and acquitted the respondents of the notice of accusation put up to them under Sections 41 and 42 of Indian Forest Act and the sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of three years imposed by the learned trial Court was set aside. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that a complaint was filed before the learned JMIC, Una by the State alleging that on 22.1.1992 H.C.Avtar Chand Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes 2 alongwith other police officials was present in the area Chattarpur in Una District in connection with Nakabandi and they intercepted a truck coming from the other side. On checking of the truck it was found that it was containing fuel wood measuring 109.Qtls. and the respondents, who were in the truck were not in a position to furnish any licence or permit for the same. A report was made to the police and challan was then filed under Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act and notice of accusation was put up to the respondents who were tried by the learned trial Court leading to their conviction and sentence and the conviction and sentence was set aside by the learned Sessions Judge on appeal. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. On appraisal of the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, it is clear that there was evidence to show that truck was being driven by respondent Rajinder Singh in which other respondents were also found present and the fuel wood in question was recovered from their possession for which there was no valid permit available with them. The learned Sessions Judge had referred to the relevant Rules i.e. Forest Produce Transit (Land Route) Rules, 1978 and a perusal of Rules 11 and 12 thereof shows that no permit shall be required in case the forest produce had been collected within the same revenue estate in which it was recovered. The permit or 3 the permission will be required for transportation only if the forest produce is transported from one revenue estate to another estate. It was held by the learned Sessions Judge that until and unless it is proved by the prosecution that the fuel wood has been collected from one revenue estate and it was being transported to another revenue estate without any pass or permit under Rule 11, the respondents cannot be held guilty. There was no evidence on record produced by the prosecution to show that the fuel wood collected from one revenue estate was being transported to another revenue estate without valid permission or permit. In the absence of any such evidence led by the prosecution, the respondents cannot be held guilty of the offences with which they have been charged. No infirmity or illegality has been pointed out in the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge and, as such, the said judgment cannot be said to be perverse calling for an interference by this Court. In view of the above discussion, finding no merit in the appeal filed by the State, the same is dismissed accordingly. Bail bonds furnished by the respondents shall stand discharged. 31st December, 2008 (V.K.Ahuja),J. (sds)