IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No.718 of 2002 Decided on: July 2, 2009. State of H.P …Appellant Versus Rajender Kumar and others …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant : Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. For the Respondents : Mr. Ravinder Thakur, Advocate. Surjit Singh, Judge (oral) Heard and gone through the record. 2. State has appealed against the judgment dated 7.6.2002 of learned trial Magistrate, whereby respondents Rajender Kumar, Ramesh Chand, Pat Ram and Mehar Singh, who were charged with and tried for offences, punishable under Sections 41, 42 of the Indian Forest Act and Section 379 IPC, have been acquitted. 3. Allegations on which the respondents were put on trial may be noticed. On 1.5.1999, SI/SHO Deep Ram, Police Station, Renukaji, while on patrol duty, alongwith H.C. Pradeep Singh, HC Kalyan Singh, Constable Dalip Singh and PW-5 Constable Sukdar Deen, at Renukaji, found a truck coming from Sangrah side, around 7.15 AM. The truck was got stopped and on checking, it was found that 90 deodar Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… sleepers were loaded therein. Proclaimed offender Vijay Singh was allegedly in driver’s seat. Above named respondents, deceased Tota Ram and Proclaimed Offender Tarlok Singh were also present in the truck. They were called upon to produce permit, authorizing them to carry and transport the timber. They did not have any papers. Truck and timber were seized. Timber was got measured from the forest officials, who were called to the spot, around 8 or 9 AM. On completion of investigation Challan was filed. 4. Respondents, Proclaimed Offenders and deceased accused, named above, were charged. They pleaded not guilty. So, the Magistrate tried them. 5. During the course of trial, Proclaimed Offenders, named above, jumped bail. By that time some of the witnesses had been examined. 6. Charge sheet was framed on 5.6.2000. Several opportunities were granted to prosecution to produce its evidence. It produced and examined some forest officials, who had measured the timber, found in the truck, but none of the police officials, including SI/SHO Deep Singh, who were the members of patrolling party, which had intercepted the truck, except one Constable PW-5 Sukdar Deen, was examined. Even this PW-5 Constable Sukdar Deen did not utter a word about the involvement of the present respondents in the commission of crime. Thus, it remained unproved whether the respondents were present in the truck, when it was intercepted. In any case, no evidence was led to show that …3… the present respondents had any knowledge of the timber being carried in the truck, without permit, leave alone their being involved in the transportation/carriage of the timber. 7. In view of the above stated position, I find no merit in the present appeal. The same is, therefore, dismissed. July 2, 2009 (ss) ( Surjit Singh ), J.