HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr.A. No.: 103 of 2004 Decided on: 30.9.2010 State of H.P. ……… Appellant. Versus Kimtu Ram ………Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the appellant: Mr.J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General. For the respondent: Mr.Parveen Chandel, vice counsel. V.K. Ahuja, J.(Oral): This is an appeal filed by the State of H.P. against the judgment of the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Theog, District Shimla, dated 1.12.2003, vide which the respondent was acquitted of the charge framed against him under Sections 33, 41 & 42 of the Indian Forest Act and Sections 379 & 447 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that a written complaint Ext.PW-1/A was lodged with the police by some persons addressed to DIG, Enforcement, on which a case was registered for illegal encroachment and cutting of trees. The case was investigated and after investigation, the challan was filed before the learned trial Court, who tried the respondents for the Sections mentioned above, leading to his acquittal. ___________________________________________ Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 4. On appraisal of the record of the case, it is clear that the first ground taken by the learned trial Court in acquitting the respondent was that notification under Section 30 of the Indian Forest Act for the offence punishable under Section 33 of the said Act was not placed on the record by the State. No arguments were advanced as to why the notification was not placed on the record and as to whether it has not affected the trial of the case. 5. The second ground taken by the learned trial Court was that the accused had removed the barbed wire fixed in Dhanote area. However, a certificate Ext.PW-7/A was taken in possession by the prosecution, which also proved that as per the record, there is no entry about the barbed wire fixed in Dhanote area and no D.R. was issued against the respondent. It has also been observed by the learned trial Court that no barbed wire or wooden poles were affixed in the said area after the year 1985 and, therefore, the prosecution case and the statement of the witness was not relied upon that the barbed wire existed at the spot which was removed by the respondent. It had also come up in the testimony of PW-8 Bhoop Ram that the stumps which were seen by him had been cut about 7-8 years ago and there was no freshly cut stumps on the spot. Therefore, the prosecution had also failed to prove that the respondent had cut these trees illegally. There is also no eye witness who had seen the respondent cutting the trees. - 3 - 6. The next ground taken by the learned trial Court was that the report submitted by PW-9 Ram Lal, Tehsildar, which is Ext.PW-9/A, does not establish that the permanent points were fixed by him after recording the statements of the parties. Thus, until and unless the permanent points were fixed, which were admitted by both the parties as correct, the report of the Revenue Officer does not establish that he had carried out the demarcation in accordance with law and the learned trial Court had, therefore, not relied upon the said report in the absence of these facts. 7. In view of the above discussion, there is nothing on the record to show that these conclusions drawn by the learned trial Court are perverse calling for an interference by this Court. Therefore, there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant, which is dismissed accordingly. However, the State is at liberty to take appropriate action against the respondent for eviction from the Government land encroached, if any, after taking proper demarcation from the Revenue Officer afresh. 8. With the aforesaid observations, the appeal is dismissed and the same stands disposed of accordingly. The bail bonds furnished by the respondent shall stand discharged. Oct.4, 2010. (V.K. Ahuja), (TILAK) Judge