IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr. Appeal No. : 28 of 2001 Reserved on: : 27.12.2007 Date of decision : 2.1.2008 State of H.P. … Appellant. Versus Nanak Chand and another. …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No. For the appellant. : Mr. Virender Kumar Verma, Addl. Advocate General. For the respondents : Mr.Vinay Thakur, Advocate. Rajiv Sharma, J. The respondents were prosecuted in case No. 10-1/98/94 under Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act and Section 379 and 34 of Indian Penal Code in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Manali at Kullu, Distt. Kullu, H.P and were acquitted on 20.7.1998. The State has filed this appeal against the acquittal of the respondents. The facts in nutshell are that on 9.8.1994 at about 2.15 A.M. H.C. Hari Singh accompanied by HHG Man Singh and HHG Hotam Ram had laid a naka at Budha camp near Chungi. They detected a truck bearing registration No.HPB-578 coming from Manali side. The truck was intercepted and four slippers of the deodar were found loaded in the driver’s chamber placed behind his seat and four slippers were found loaded in the tool box of the truck. The F.I.R. was registered and the case was investigated. The prosecution had produced seven witnesses to prove the case against the accused. The respondents were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The trial Court acquitted the respondents on 20.7.1998. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? The learned Additional Advocate General has strenuously contended that the prosecution had proved the case against the accused persons and the judgement of the trial Court dated 20.7.1998 is liable to be set aside. Mr.Vinay Thakur, Advocate, had supported the judgement dated 20.7.1998. I have heard the parties and perused the record carefully. PW-1 Hotam Ram and PW-2 Man Singh were declared hostile. PW-1 Hotam Ram failed to identify the accused person during the trial. PW-2 Man Singh has shown his ignorance about the hammer mark on the timber recovered. PW-3 is Uttam Chand. He was examined to prove the disclosure statement made by accused persons. He had categorically admitted in his cross-examination that no independent witnesses were associated at the time when truck was intercepted. PW-4 is Vishwa Dev, B.O.Forest, who has been produced to prove Ext.PW-4/B the estimated valuation certificate of the seized timber. PW-5 S.R.Rana is a formal witness. He has only stated that on completion of the investigation he prepared the challan in question. PW-6 is Ajit Ram, owner of truck No. HPB-578. He had stated that he owned the truck bearing No. HPB-578 and he had employed Nanak Chand, as driver and had denied that Rajesh Kumar conductor was employed by him. He has stated that timber in question was purchased by him from Ved Ram, proprietor of saw-mill, for the purpose of repairing the truck. DW-1 Ved Ram had stated that on 6.8.1994 Ajit Ram, owner of the truck accompanied by accused Nanak Chand visited him. He had categorically stated that Ajit Singh purchased four slippers of Deodar which were converted into eight pieces at his saw mill. PW-1 Hotam Ram and PW-2 Man Singh, as per the version of the prosecution were eye witnesses, but they have not stated anything in their statements about the hammer mark on the seized timbers. They were declared hostile. The case property was not produced in the Court and the trial Court had rightly drawn adverse inference against the prosecution. The statement of PW-6 Ajit Ram has remained uncontroverted that he has purchased the timber from Ved Ram DW-1. Disclosure statement made by Nanak Chand under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act has been rightly not taken into consideration by the trial Court since the persons who has proved the case i.e. PW-2 Man Singh was declared hostile and nothing material has come in his cross-examination. PW-7 Hari Singh has not assigned any reason why independent witnesses were not associated at the time of seizure of the timber. The trial Court after appreciating the evidence led by the prosecution as well as by the defence has rightly acquitted the respondents. The prosecution has failed to prove the case against the respondents. Consequently there is no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. The bail bonds furnished by the respondents are discharged. January 2, 2008 ( Rajiv Sharma), ™ Judge