IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Appeal No.438 of 2001 Date of decision : May 30, 2008 State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus Ram Krishan and another …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1. No For the appellant : Mr. P.M. Negi, Dy. Advocate General. For the respondents : Mr. Parveen Chandel, Advocate. Surjit Singh, Judge (Oral) State is aggrieved by the judgment of trial Court, whereby the respondents, who were sent up for trial for offences, punishable under Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act, have been acquitted. 2. Accusation that was made against the respondents may be summed up thus. On 3.6.1994 at 3 PM, respondents were allegedly carrying 10 quintals of fuel wood (Gutkas) in a tractor trolley at a place called Nangal Bet. They were intercepted by HC Narotam Singh and some police officials accompanying him. On being asked to produce the papers authorizing transportation of wood, the respondents could not produce any papers. So, the wood was seized and a case was Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… registered against the respondents. They were sent up for trial. Trial Court has acquitted them holding that the prosecution story is disproved by its own witnesses. 3. I have gone through the evidence and heard the learned Deputy Advocate General. Head Constable Narotam Singh, who was heading the police party that intercepted the tractor trolley, was not examined. PW1 LHC Amrit Lal, who was accompanying said HC Narotam Singh, admitted in the cross- examination that the trolley was found parked at a saw-mill. PW-2 Vikram Chand, an independent witness, also stated that the trolley was parked near a saw-mill. That means the story of the prosecution that the trolley was intercepted when the wood was being transported, is untrue. 4. Further, it has come in the evidence that the wood had been extracted from Sheesham trees felled on the respondents’ own land. There is absolutely no evidence that the wood had been moved or was intended to be moved, leave alone the allegation that it was being actually moved/transported from the revenue estate in which the two Sheesham trees, felled by the respondents on their own land stood. 5. In view of the above stated position, no offence can be said to have been committed by the respondents. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. May 30, 2008(ss) ( Surjit Singh ), J