IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.Rev.No.53 of 2009 Date of decision: 23.10.2009 State of H.P.& another. Petitioner Versus Satya Prakash Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K.Ahuja,J. Whether approved for reporting1? . For the petitioner: Ms. Subh Mahajan, Dy. Advocate General. For the respondent: Mr.Rajiv Sirkek, Advocate. V.K.Ahuja,J.(oral) This judgment shall dispose of the petition filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh under Sections 397,401 Cr.P.C. read with Section 482 Cr. P.C. against the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushehr dated 26.2.2009, vide which the appeal filed by the respondent under Section 59(2) of the Forest Act against the order passed by the Forest Officer dated 31.12.2009 was allowed. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that an FIR was registered against the respondent and two other persons on 8.7.1998 and the truck was intercepted by the police, and on checking, seven sleepers were found in the truck which were taken into possession along with the truck. The respondent Sat Parkash is the owner as also the driver of the truck and Satya Pal is the conductor and Guman Singh was another occupant in the truck. The case was tried by the Court of JMIC, Kinnaur. The proceedings under Section 52-A were initiated by the Forest Officer and on conclusion of the proceedings, he passed an order for Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. confiscation of the timber along with the truck in question. The respondent/owner of the truck filed an appeal which was allowed by the learned Sessions Judge vide his impugned order, who set aside the order passed by the Forest Officer. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of the learned Sessions Judge, the State has come up in revision before this Court. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. From a perusal of the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court, it is clear that the learned trial Court has not referred to the judgment of the Court below in detail vide which the respondent was acquitted of the charge framed under Section 379 IPC nor it so observed specifically or discussed that he was convicted by the Court below under Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act which finding was affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge since the appeal filed by the respondent was dismissed. In allowing the appeal filed by the respondent, the learned Sessions Judge has been swayed by the fact that the respondent herein was acquitted of the charge framed against him under Section 379 I.P.C. but an order of conviction was there against the respondent under Sections 41 and 42 of Forest Act. He also not discussed the evidence including the statement of one Milap Chand, whose statement was material in the facts of the case. The learned Sessions Judge was required to consider the evidence placed before the Forest Officer and should have discussed the evidence and then should have come to the conclusion. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and the facts and circumstances discussed above, I am of the opinion that the case deserves to be remanded to the learned Sessions Judge for a decision afresh. In view of the above discussions, the appeal filed by the State is allowed and the judgment dated passed by the learned Sessions Judge is set side. The learned Sessions Judge shall re- hear the parties and after examining the record shall give his fresh judgment. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the learned Sessions Judge, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushehr on 23.11.2009. A copy of this judgment be sent to the learned Sessions Judge and records be returned forthwith. 23rd October, 2009. (V.K.Ahuja),J. (SDS)