HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr.A. No. : 33 of 2003 Decided on: 17.11.2011 State of Himachal Pradesh ……… Appellant. Versus Basti Ram ………Respondent. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the Appellant: Mr.Rajesh Mandhotra, Deputy Advocate General. For the respondent: Ms.Shikha Thakur, Advocate. Justice Deepak Gupta, J.(oral): This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment dated 25.6.2002 delivered by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirmaur, whereby he acquitted the accused of having committed offences punishable under Section 406, 407, 409 and 420 of the IPC. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that a truck bearing No.HP-16-1121 was seized by the police since it was being used for an illegal purpose i.e. transportation of illicitly fell timber. The Divisional Forest Officer, who is also the Authorized Officer under Section 52-A of the Indian Forest Act, vide his order dated 11.9.1998 directed that the truck in question be confiscated. The accused __________________________________________________________________________ Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - preferred an appeal against the said order of confiscation before the learned Sessions Judge, Sirmaur. The said appeal was allowed and the order of confiscation was reversed and the case was remanded to the Authorized Officer-cum-DFO for decision afresh. 3. Thereafter, the Authorized Officer-cum-DFO again conducted the trial and during the course of this trial, the disputed truck was handed over to the accused on his furnishing Sapurdari bond. One of the terms of the Sapurdari bond was that the accused would produce the truck as and when called upon to do so. 4. On 7th August, 2000, the Authorized Officer- cum-DFO again passed an order for confiscation of the aforesaid truck in favour of the State Government and notice was issued to the accused to produce the truck before the Authorized Officer. The accused failed to produce the aforesaid truck and thereafter a complaint was lodged by the Divisional Forest Officer with the police on the basis of which the FIR has been registered against the accused for having committed the aforesaid offences. Investigation was done and after trial, the accused was acquitted. Hence this appeal. 5. We have heard Mr.Rajesh Mandhotra, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State and Ms.Shikha Thakur, Advocate, for the accused. 6. The accused is charged for having committed two offences. First offence is criminal breach of trust. There is no manner of doubt that the truck in question was entrusted to the accused. In addition to proving the - 3 - entrustment, it has also to be proved that the accused, with dishonest motive, had misappropriated the property entrusted to him. This the prosecution has miserably failed to prove. The stand of the accused is that this truck was financed by a finance company and the officials of the finance company took the truck from him. This version of the accused has been accepted by the learned trial Court and there is no material on record to hold that the truck in question was intentionally and deliberately not produced by the accused or that it was misappropriated with dishonest intention. 7. As far as the offence of cheating is concerned, none of the ingredients qua this offence has been proved. The defence of the accused was a credible and probable defence and rightly accepted by the learned trial Court. Hence we find no merit in the appeal, which is accordingly rejected. We may, however, make it clear that it shall be open to the State Government to initiate proceedings against the accused for recovery of the value of the truck alongwith other damages and interest in accordance with law. 8. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. (Deepak Gupta), Judge. November 17, 2011 (V.K. Ahuja), (tilak) Judge.