1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Revision No. 66 of 2002 Date of Decision: December 15, 2008 _______________________________________________________ Ram Roop & others Petitioners. Versus State of H.P. Respondent. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting1? yes For the Petitioners : Mr M.S. Chandel, Senior Advocate, with Mr. N.S.Chandel, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr J.S.Guleria, Law Officer. Surinder Singh, J . (Oral) The petitioners were tried for the offences punishable under section 379 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 41 & 42 of the Indian Forest Act. At the end of the trial, they were acquitted of the offence punishable under section 379 of the Indian Penal Code but convicted under section 41 & 42 of the Indian Forest Act and each of the petitioners were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period one year and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-. Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? Yes.. 2 An appeal was filed, which was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Solan, on 1.4.2002. Now the present revision petition has been filed, precisely on the grounds that there was no legal ground to convict the petitioners for the offence aforesaid and further that the independent witnesses were not examined and also that the timber in question was claimed to be Ballan (fire- wood) by the petitioners, transportation of which did not violate the rules aforesaid. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and examined the record. Offence of theft against the petitioners could not be proved by the prosecution during the trial of the case, as such they were acquitted. The petitioners claimed the timber in question (ballan) as their own property and according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, no permission was required for its transportation within the same revenue estate. Facts which emerges from the evidence on that PW-1 R.K.Dogra (Range Officer), PW-2Harbansh Lal, Forest Guard, 3 PW-3 ASI Guler Chand and PW-10 Rikhi Ram Inspector were on patrolling duty and they had put a Nakka, at Mahadev Khud on Nalagarh-Swarghat road, during the intervening night of 7th-8th January, 1997 at about 2.45 p.m. They noticed two camels, coming from the side of village Palli. They were stopped. Petitioner Banarsi Dass was riding on one of the camel whereas petitioner Ram Nath was leading that camel with the help of a string, fastened with its neck. Petitioner Ram Sarup was similarly leading the second camel. One of the camels was carrying a load of nine logs of Khair wood and the other was carrying 33 khair logs and one stump. On their interception, petitioners failed to produce any permit for transporting the timber. Panchnamma of recovery Ex.PW1/A was prepared on the spot. Ruqua Ex.PW3-A was sent from the spot for registration of the case. The police prepared panchanamas Ex.PW4/A to Ex.PW4/E and the camels seized and were given on spurdari to accused persons. PWs 1 to 3 and PW-10 aforesaid have unequivocally deposed during the trial that the petitioners were found transporting the timber as aforesaid without permission. 4 This fact could not be shattered by the accused persons in their cross-examination but significantly they have admitted its transportation even in their statement, under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Rule 11 of the Himachal Pradesh Forest Produce Transit (Land Routes) Rules, 1978 absolutely prohibits transportation of any forest produce. It says that no person shall transport or cause to be transported any forest produce (except Kuth) [or forest produce obtained from Poplar, Albizzia, Willow, Bhanuai, Eucalyptus and Mulbury] by land routes, without obtaining pass (Annexure A) from the concerned Divisional Forest Officer or any other officer so authorized. This Rule does not exempt a person carrying balan or fuel wood, which is also a forest produce. There is only Rule 17 which exempts right holders from obtaining permission. It says that notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, a right holder who has collected forest produce in exercise of his recorded right may, without obtaining a pass transport such forest 5 produce within the revenue estate in which it has been so collected. In the instant case, although PW-5 Santosh Kumar, Forest Guard has admitted that one of the petitioner is resident of village Palli whereas other petitioners are resident of different places. According to him, village Palli falls in the same revenue estate where the petitioners were apprehended. The evidence of transportation of timber stands established but they failed to prove that they are the right holders of the same revenue estate and have collected the forest produce in exercise of their recorded rights, for which no pass / permission was required. Accordingly, for the above reasons, in my considered opinion, there was no error committed in the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court for the offence, punishable under section 41 & 42 of the Indian Forest Act and it was rightly affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge. In so far as sentence part is concerned, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the offence had taken place in the month of January, 1997, a decade back and the petitioners have 6 suffered the torture of trial thus a lenient view may be taken. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, punishment provided for and the time taken for disposal of the matter, ends of justice would be met, if while maintaining the fine, the substantive sentence is reduced to till the rising of the court. Thus ordered accordingly. The fine amount if not already deposited be deposited within three weeks from today. The revision petition stands disposed of. December 15, 2008 (Surinder Singh),J. (D)