IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Appeal No.351 of 2002. Date of decision: 7th January, 2009. State of H.P. .. ..Appellant Versus Sahibhumal . . ..Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting ? No For the Appellant: Mr.Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy.A.G. For the respondent: Mr.Lalit Sharma,Advocate _____________________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J.(oral) This Appeal by the State is directed against the judgment of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohru, District Shimla, H.P. dated 29.9.2001 whereby he acquitted the accused of having committed offences punishable under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act. The accused was the Head Master of Government High School Gumma. It is not disputed that at his instance a tree was got felled. According to the prosecution this tree was felled from forest land and therefore the accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act. According to the accused this tree was felled from the land belonging to the Education Department of the State of Himachal Pradesh which was not a forest land and therefore no offence has been committed. …2… To establish that the tree was on forest land the prosecution examined one Basundar Dass who was working as a Patwari in the Forest Department. According to him he prepared a tatima Ext.PW-8/A of the place from where the tree was felled and this spot was found to be in the demarcated protected forest Gumma. He admits that the land on which the tree was situated is adjoining the land in possession of the Gumma High School. He states that he also measured and demarcated the school land but failed to give any satisfactory answer as to whether the khasra Nos.987, 988 and 989 were in possession of the School. He also admitted in cross examination that he had actually not measured the land on the spot. The perusal of the statement of PW-8 does not show that he followed the established procedure laid down for demarcation of forest land. The accused examined Kali Ram, DW-3. He is a Field Kanungo. He demarcated the land on 24.5.2000 on the direction of the Tehsildar. He conducted demarcation of the land comprised in khasra Nos.1,2 and 3 of the demarcated protected forest. He found that a tree had been felled in khasra No.3 and its stump was available on the spot. In jamabandi Ext.D-3 though the land was found to be recorded in the ownership of the State the possession was shown to be of Education Department. The report of this witness is DW-3/A. Both the revenue officials examined in the case have given two divergent versions. According to PW-8 …3… the tree was found to have been felled from forest land whereas according to DW-3 the land from which the tree was felled is shown to be in the possession of the Education Department. Keeping the aforesaid into consideration the learned trial Court was justified in acquitting the accused. I find no reason to interfere with the said judgment. Accordingly, the appeal is rejected. Bail bonds furnished by the accused are ordered to be discharged. 7th January, 2009. ( Deepak Gupta ), PV Judge