IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Cr.Appeal No.739 of 2008 Date of decision: 19. 12. 2008 State of H.P. Appellant Versus Vipin Kumar Respondent ___________________________________________________________ Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 No. For the Appellant: Mr J.S.Guleria, Law officer. For the Respondent: Surinder Singh, J . (Oral) Cr.M.P.(M) No. 1316 of 2008 Heard. There is a delay of 59 days in filing the present appeal. The grounds are mentioned in para 2 of the application, which are duly supported by an affidavit of Shri Vijay Kumar Sharma, Under Secretary (Home) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh. Prima-facie, the contentions raised in the application constitute sufficient cause for condoning the delay. As such, the delay in filing the present appeal is hereby condoned. The application stands disposed of. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?yes 2 Cr.M.P.No. 1317 of 2008 The case of the prosecution is that on 5.12.2002 respondent had illicitly felled one Pine tree and converted into logs in UPF Rachhoh , Bangana Block in District Hamirpur. The prosecution story goes on like this that Forest Guard PW7 Ram Pal was having the additional charge of Paniala beat, and was on patrolling duty in Sola Singi area. He noticed one person converting a pine tree into logs while going in a Jeep with Block Officer Mohinder Singh (PW-6). On seeing him, but he fled away as it was getting dark, the person could not be identified. The Forest Guard was called back by PW6 Mohinder Singh. Both of them returned to Badsar. Next day, i.e. on 6.12. 2002 PW3 Udham Singh and Parkash Chand are alleged to have supplied the name of the respondent to them as having seen him a boy while passing through the path through the forest to their village. On being asked by them he disclosed his name and told them he was running away because he apprehended that the Forest Guard might not implicate him in the illicit felling case. On this information, the name of respondent was entered as an accused in the damage report Ex.PW-2/A. The complaint was filed against the respondent for the offences under section 33 & 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act (hereinafter to be called as ‘the Act’). During the trial of the case, he was not found transporting the timber and the notification of U.P.F. was neither produced nor proved on record, so as to bring home the offence under section 33 of the Act, which is a sina-quo-non. Forest Guard had already stated that he could not recognize the accused. The testimony of PW3 was rightly rejected by the learned trial court because he was also not an eye witness 3 and otherwise also his statement is un-natural and smacks of ulterior motive because PW-7 Ram Paul Forest Guard has admitted in his cross- examination that respondent has filed a case against him in the court with respect to a quarrel wherein the leg of the respondent got fractured and the said case was pending, therefore testimonies of PW7 as well as PW3 could not be believed and otherwise also the above statements create a doubt in the prosecution case. In the light of the above facts and also in the absence of notification, under section 33 of the Act the respondent was rightly acquitted by the learned trial court, as such leave sought by the State to appeal is rejected. Cr. Appeal No.739 of 2008 No orders, in view of the order passed in the petition for leave to appeal. December 19,2008 (Surinder Singh),J. (D)