IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.R No.58 of 2003 Date of decision : October 27, 2009 State of H.P. …Petitioner. Versus Suresh Kumar and another Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. For the Respondents : Mr. Karan Singh, Advocate, vice Mr. Bimal Gupta, Advocate. Surjit Singh, Judge (Oral) Respondents were challaned by the police, in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, for allegedly having committed offences, under Sections 41 & 42 of the Indian Forest Act, and Sections 3/14 of the Sale of Timber Act. 2. Allegations, which were made against the respondents, were that four Sheesham trees were felled on the private land of respondent Kuldeep Sharma. Timber obtained from the felled trees was recovered from the house of Liakat Ali. Respondent Suresh Kumar allegedly helped respondent Kuldeep Sharma in converting the felled trees into timber and carrying the same to the place of Liakat Ali. 3. Trial Court had discharged the respondents, after passing a summoning order, under Section 204 of the Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… Code of Criminal Procedure. Reasons given by the trial Magistrate are that since the timber had already been transported and it was not in transit, no offence had been committed by the respondents. 4. Reliance has been placed by the learned Magistrate upon two judgments of this Court, in Arjun Singh and others Versus State of H.P., 2002 (3) Shim.L.C. 282, and Prem Kumar Malik Versus State of Himachal Pradesh, 2000(2) Shim. L.C. 520, wherein it has been held that under Rule 41, the State Government is authorised to frame Rules, in respect of the timber in transit. Since the timber in the present case was not in transit, but had already been transported and stored in the premises of Liakat Ali, learned Magistrate has observed that offence of violation of Rules framed, under Section 41 and punishable under Section 42 of the Indian Forest Act, can not be said to have been committed. 5. Order of discharge passed by learned Magistrate has been assailed in the present Revision Petition, by the State. 6. I have heard the learned Assistant Advocate General as also the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record. 7. For reasons, other than those recorded by the learned trial Magistrate, I feel that the order does not call for interference. Transportation of the timber obtained …3… from trees, lawfully felled by a person on his own land, within the same revenue estate, is permissible. For such transportation no permit or pass is required from forest authorities. In the present case, there is no allegation that the timber had been transported outside the revenue estate. If that is so, presumption should be that the place where the trees stood and the place from where the timber was recovered fell within the area of the same revenue estate. Thus, this is not a case of illegal transportation of timber, in violation of H.P. Forest Produce Transit (Land Routes) Rules, 1978. 8. Also, there is no allegation that the trees were illicitly felled. Admittedly, the trees stood on the land of respondent Kuldeep Sharma. In the absence of any allegation that the trees were illicitly felled, it has to be presumed that trees had been felled in a lawful manner. Provisions of Sale of Timber Act could not be said to be attracted, because there is no allegation that any of the respondents sold the timber extracted from the trees felled on the land of respondent Kuleep Sharma. On the contrary, the allegation is that the Sheesham timber belonged to respondent Kuldeep Sharma, while timber of some other species, in small quantity, found lying at the place of Liakat Ali, belonged to Liakat Ali himself. Hence, the petition is dismissed. October 27, 2009(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J.