IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.A No.64 of 2002 Date of decision : June 1, 2009 State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus Surinder Lal Sood and another …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the Appellant : Mr. Ramesh Thakur Assistant Advocate General. For the Respondents : M/s Ajay Kochhar & Bimal Gupta, Advocates. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) State has preferred the present appeal against the judgment, dated 12th October, 2001, of learned Special Judge (F), Shimla, whereby respondent Gurcharan Singh, who, alongwith respondent Surinder Lal Sood, was tried for offences, punishable under Sections 120-B, 379, 420 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 41, 42 of the Indian Forest Act and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, has been acquitted, and respondent Surinder Lal Sood has also been acquitted of all the offences, except under Rule 20 of the Himachal Pradesh Forest Produce Transit (Land Routes) Rules, 1978. 2. Facts, which led to the charging and trial of the respondents, may be noticed. In the year 1982, 28 Deodar trees, 37 Kail trees and 3 Rai trees, standing on Khasra No.56/14, belonging to one Mania and one Murtu, had been Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… purchased by a forest lessee, named Gian Singh. He felled those trees and extracted timber therefrom. He was issued Export Permit No.42/82-83, dated 6th May, 1982, for the export of the timber so extracted. Permit was valid upto 22nd May, 1982. Validity period was extended twice; initially upto 11th June, 1982 and then upto 31st July, 1982. Against the aforesaid Permit, respondent Surinder Lal Sood allegedly exported timber and transported the same by train. He booked the timber for transportation by train at Railway Station, Shoghi, where respondent Gurcharan Singh was employed as Station Master those days. While investigating case FIR No.19 of 1984, dated 29th February, 1984, it came to light that respondent Surinder Lal Sood had not only used the Permit issued in favour of M/s Gian Singh Private Contractor, but had also exported more timber than permitted to be exported and also beyond the validity period of Export Permit. 3. Case was registered against the respondents. It came to light that timber was transported by train against six Railway receipts, Exts. PW-31/B, PW-31/G, PW-31/H, PW-31/K, PW-31/M and PW-31/Q. Their corresponding forwarding notes, Exts. DA, DB, PW-31/J, PW-31/L, PW-31/N and PW-31/P, respectively, were allegedly filled in and signed by respondent Surinder Lal Sood and one Satish Kumar. Difference was found in the number of scants mentioned in forwarding notes and the Railway receipts. Number of scants, mentioned in Railway receipts, was more than the number mentioned in the forwarding notes. In all 139 scants were alleged to have been …3… exported in excess of the number mentioned in the forwarding notes. This was allegedly done in furtherance of the conspiracy hatched by the respondents. 4. Trial Court, on the conclusion of the proceedings, held respondent Surinder Lal Sood guilty of exporting timber, against a permit issued in favour of another person, namely Gian Singh, and convicted him of offence, under Rule 20 of the Himachal Pradesh Forest Produce Transit (Land Routes) Rules, 1978. It, however, rejected the prosecution story that there was any conspiracy between respondent Surinder Lal Sood and respondent Gurcharan Singh and in furtherance of that conspiracy, timber in excess of the quantity authorized by Export Permit had been exported. 5. State has filed the present appeal seeking conviction of both the respondents for the offences of conspiracy, cheating, theft and criminal misconduct. Respondent Surinder Lal Sood died during the pendency of the present appeal. So, the appeal as against him abates. 6. I have heard the learned Assistant Advocate General, representing the appellant, as also the learned counsel for respondent Gurcharan Singh. 7. There does not seem to be any reason to interfere with the well reasoned judgment of the trial Court. To come to the conclusions that no timber was exported, in excess of the quantity authorized by Export Permit, and that also no timber was exported, after the validity period of the Export Permit, learned trial Court has placed reliance upon the testimony of …4… two witnesses, namely PW-3 K.C. Nandwani and PW-2 S.U. Siddique, Commercial Inspector of Railways. 8. PW-3 K.C. Nandwani, in his cross-examination, admitted that for proper packing and adjustment of the timber in wagons, sometimes scants are cut into two and because of that the number of scants, mentioned in forwarding notes, gets increased and it is the increased number which is mentioned in Railway receipts, which are prepared, at the time of actual dispatch of the timber from Railway Station to the destination mentioned in the forwarding notes. Statement of PW-3 K.C. Nandwani proves the defence plea that increase in number of scants, if any, was on account of cutting of some of the scants to properly adjust them in the wagons. 9. PW-2 SU Sidique stated that dispatch of the goods received at the Railway Station is often delayed, because wagons are not readily available and they have to be requisitioned from other Railway Stations. PW-3 K.C. Nandwani stated that validity period mentioned in the permits is relevant only for the purpose of delivery of the goods at the Railway Station and that once the goods are delivered at the Railway Station, further dispatch of the goods may take place any time, even beyond the period of validity of the permits. In view of the abovestated position, I see no reason for interfering with the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court in favour of respondent Gurcharan Singh. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. June 1, 2009(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J