IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Revision No. 173 of 2004. Decided on November 23, 2010. Satya Parkash …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. ..Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner Sh. M.L.Brakta, Advocate. For the respondent Mr. Vikas Rathore, Dy. A.G., and Mr. RameshThakur, Asstt. AG. Surjit Singh, Judge (Oral) This revision petition is directed against the judgment, dated 1.9.2004, of learned Sessions Court, whereby, appeal filed by the petitioner, against the judgment dated 27.9.2003 of learned trial Magistrate, by which he (the petitioner) has been convicted, under Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act, and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and to pay fine of Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further imprisonment for 15 days, has been dismissed. 2. Petitioner, alongwith two other persons, named Satya Pal and Guman Singh, had been challaned, under Section 379 IPC and 41/42 of the Indian Forest Act, for allegedly committing theft of seven sleepers of Kail, and transporting those sleepers, without any permit, thereby violating the provisions of H.P. Forest Produce Transit (Land Route) Rules, 1978. It was alleged that on 8.7.1998, at a place near Thanadhar, truck No. HP-06-1466, which was being driven by the present petitioner, was intercepted by the police. Truck appeared from Narkanda side. It was signalled to stop by the police officials, who had organized a naka, at that site. The truck did not stop. It was given a chase in a Zypsy and intercepted at a distance of about one and a half kms. from the site of naka. On checking, it was found that truck was loaded with sand and above that sand, seven sleepers of kail were also there. One of the three persons in the truck, namely Guman Singh, escaped, taking advantage of the darkness, while the present petitioner and one Satya Pal, conductor in the truck, were nabbed. Guman Singh was also arrested later on. No permit for carriage of the timber, or showing that timber belonged - 3 - to the petitioner, or either of the other two accused, was produced. Timber was taken into possession and produced before the Authorized Officer, who passed an order of confiscation of timber as also the truck. 3. Challan was filed against the petitioner and his above named two accomplices. They were tried for offences, under Sections 379 IPC and 41/42 of the Indian Forest Act. Trial Court convicted the present petitioner and conductor Satya Pal, of offences, under Sections 41/42 of the Indian Forest Act and sentenced them, as aforesaid. Appeal was filed in the Sessions Court by the present petitioner and said Satya Pal. Learned Sessions Judge, vide impugned order, acquitted Satya Pal, but maintained the conviction and sentence of the present petitioner. 4. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and the Deputy Advocate General and gone through the record. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that timber, which had allegedly been seized, was not produced during the course of trial. Submission has been noticed only to be rejected. Prosecution examined a witness from the office of DFO (Authorized Officer, within the meaning of Section 52-A, as added to the Indian Forest Act, 1927, by Himachal - 4 - Amendment). He is PW-6 Roshan Lal. The witness, very categorically, stated that DFO had ordered confiscation of the vehicle, by order, copy Ex.PW-6/A. Copy of the order is available on record, but it has not been exhibited. Statement of PW-6 proves the copy of order. As per this order, not only the truck, but the timber recovered therefrom, had also been confiscated. Now, when the timber had been produced before the Authorized Officer and he ordered its confiscation, its non production in the Court during trial of the petitioner, cannot be said to weaken the prosecution case, in any manner. Order of confiscation proves the fact that timber had been seized alongwith the truck. 6. Otherwise also, there is enough evidence to conclude that the petitioner, who was driver and also owner of the truck, had been carrying seven sleepers of Kail in his truck. Reference, in this behalf, may be made to the testimony of PW-11, Bhupinder Singh, SHO, Kumarsain, who had organized naka on the relevant night, as also PW-1 HC Raj Kumar and PW-2 LHC Amir Chand, who were accompanying PW-11 Bhupinder Singh. There does not seem to be any reason to disbelieve their testimony, especially when it is corroborated by the order of Authorized Officer, confiscating the timber and the truck. - 5 - 7. In view of the above stated position, revision petition is dismissed. November 23, 2010 (PC). (Surjit Singh) Judge.