IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. Revision Nos. 1 of 2005 and 2 of 2005 Date of Decision 18th May ,2011 ________________________________________________________ Cr. Revision No. 1 of 2005 Om Parkash ….Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. ….Respondent. Cr. Revision No.2 of 2005 Balwinder Singh ….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. ….Respondent ________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. ________________________________________________________ Cr. Revision Nos. 1 and 2 of 2005 For the Petitioners: Mr. K.D. Sood, Advocate. For the Respondent: Ms. Shubh Mahajan, Deputy A.G. ______________________________________________________________ Dev Darshan Sud, J (oral) Both these revision petitions arise out of the common judgment convicting the petitioners herein for offences under Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act for which they were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and fine 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 of ` 1000/- each for offences under Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act and in default to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months. 2. There were eight accused who were charged before the learned trial Court for offences under Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act and 379 IPC. On appraisal of evidence, the learned trial Court found that nine logs of Sheesham and fire wood weighing 25 Qtls. were transported without any permit. Only the present petitioners were found, on the evidence on record, as being implicated in the case and accordingly they were sentenced. They were acquitted for offence under Section 379 IPC. 3. The petitioners appealed and on the evidence on record, the learned Appellate Court, rejected the defence set up by the petitioners herein. 4. One of the points urged before the learned Appellate Court was that the evidence was of a contradictory nature and that the witnesses did not speak the truth. The learned Court on considering the evidence, held that evidence of the witness was sufficient for conviction. The Court, rightly relied upon the principle of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus, as not applicable in India and it is the duty of the Court to sift the chaff from the grain. The learned Court holds that it has been proved that the timber has been seized from these persons. 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and also gone through the record. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that evidence of PW7, PW8, PW9, PW10, PW11, PW12, 3 PW13, PW14, PW15 and PW16 could not be relied upon as they have turned hostile. For this purpose, all that I need notice is that the learned Appellate Court has rightly applied the maxim supra. Even while considering the evidence of these witnesses, who though have turned hostile, I do not find that their evidence does not prove fatal to the prosecution case. I find that both the Courts below have duly appreciated the evidence in detail. I do not find any perversity either in appreciation of evidence or in reaching the conclusion that the petitioners are guilty. Therefore, the petitions are rejected and the conviction is upheld. 7. Adverting to the question of sentencing, I find that this is one case where adequate compensation can be given to the State for the purpose of greening the forest. The petitioners have been acquitted for offence under Section 379 IPC but it is proved that the fire wood (dead wood) and nine logs of Sheesham have been seized. In these circumstances, I have considered the fact that since the case has been dragged on since the year 2003, it would be in the fitness of things in case each of the petitioners herein deposits a sum of ` 12,500/- before the trial Court within a period of three months from today. On such deposit being made, this amount shall be released to the Forest Department which shall use it appropriately for the purpose of conservation of ecology. The sentence of imprisonment imposed is accordingly set aside. It is further directed that in case of non-deposit of amount, as directed, the sentence of imprisonment shall revive, which shall be duly and faithfully executed by the learned trial Court. The amount of compensation ordered to be paid shall be over and above the 4 fine which has been imposed. Bail bonds stand discharged. Revision Petitions stand disposed of. Dasti copy on usual terms. May 18th, 2011 (Dev Darshan Sud), ms Judge 5