IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Revision No. 159 of 2010. Decided on November 11, 2010. Rattan Chand and others …Petitioners. Versus State of H.P. & another ..Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the petitioner Sh. Lovneesh Kanwar, Advocate. For the respondents Mr. Vikas Rathore, Dy. A.G., and Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Asstt. AG. Surjit Singh, Judge (Oral) Petitioners are aggrieved by the judgment dated 9.6.2010, of learned Sessions Court, whereby, while disposing of an appeal against the judgment of conviction of the petitioners, for offences under Sections 41, 42 of the Indian Forest Act and Sections 379 and 120-B IPC, rendered by the Judicial Magistrate, respondent No. 2 Bhindu Ram has been acquitted and as regards the present petitioners, case has been remanded, with a direction to the trial Court Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - to try the same afresh, after re-framing the charge, as indicated in the impugned judgment. 2. Petitioners, along with Bhindu Ram aforesaid, were tried for the aforesaid offences, on a police report. Trial Court framed the charge, as follows:- “ That on 23rd December, 1999 at about 7 P.M. at Ghatta you were found transporting 41 slippers of Deodar without any permit through vehicle No. HIH-2613 hatching a conspiracy against each other and thereby committed an offwence punishable u/s 41 & 42 of Indian Forest Act and u/s 379, 120-B IPC within my cognizance.” 3. Petitioners and respondent No. 2 were held guilty by the trial Court and sentenced, vide judgment dated 22.3.2006. Appeal was filed by the present petitioners and respondent No. 2. Learned Sessions Judge, vide impugned judgment, acquitted respondent No. 2. It also acquitted the present petitioners of offence under Section 379 IPC. However, it re-framed the charge under Sections 120-B IPC and Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act, read with - 3 - Rule 5 of the Forest Produce Transit (Land Routes) Rules. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the course, adopted by the Sessions Court, is not correct and that when the charge framed by the trial Magistrate, was not in accordance with law, petitioners ought to have been acquitted, as the entire proceedings stood vitiated, on account of defective charge. In support of his contention, reliance has been placed upon a judgment of this Court in Shiv Narain Bhasin v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 1985 Sim. L.C. 274. Precedent, relied upon, does not come to the rescue of the petitioners, because the matter was at revisional stage in this Court, when the prosecution’s submission for remanding the case to the trial Magistrate, on account of defect in the charge, was made. Here the defect has been noticed by the appellate Court and the appellate Court, after re- framing the charge, has directed fresh trial. 5. In view of the above stated position, I find no merit in the revision petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed. November 11, 2010 (PC). (Surjit Singh) Judge.