HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr.A.No. 238 of 2002. Reserved on: 3.8.2009. Decided on: 6.9.2010. State of H.P. ………Appellant. Versus Moti Ram and others ……Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No. For the appellant: Mr.J.S. Guleria, Assistant Advocate General. For respondent No.2: Mr.Satyan Vaidya, Advocate. V.K. Ahuja, J.: This is an appeal filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh against the judgment of the Court of learned Special Judge, Shimla, dated 16.1.2002, vide which the respondents were acquitted of the charge framed against them under Sections 379, 420, 120-B, 218 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Rules 11 and 18, punishable under Rule 20, of the H.P. Forest Produce Transit (Land Routes) Rules, 1978. _______ 1.Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - 2. Prosecution story in brief is that during the investigation of a case FIR No.17/1984, dated 29.8.1984, on checking of record of Railway Station, Summer Hill, it was revealed that respondent No.1 was carrying on the business of private sale of timber in village Sapnoth, Tehsil Karsog, District Mandi, H.P. and had exported 183 scants of timber to Guru Harsai vide permit, dated 17.2.1982 and railway receipt dated 18.2.1982, whereas respondent No.1 was only allowed to export the said timber to Yamuna Nagar. The said railway receipt was found to have been issued by Railway Station Master, Summer Hill illegally. On disclosure of the said fact, it was alleged that the timber so exported was of the trees illegally cut from the forest of Himachal Pradesh in connivance with the forest officials and the same was exported illegally in connivance with the then Railway Station Master. Accordingly, a case under Sections 379, 429, 120-B of the IPC and under Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was registered at Police Station, Enforcement, South Zone, Shimla and the investigation was carried out. The prosecution case was that respondent No.1 was carrying on the business of private sale contractor of timber. He had purchased certain trees in private sale from land owners which were marked for felling and were allowed to be felled by the then DFO, Karsog, as per the Rules. Thereafter, respondent No.1 moved an application accompanied by a list of timber to the then Divisional Forest Officer, Karsog that he had cut and extracted the timber from 142 trees of chil and 36 tress of deodar. It was alleged in the application that he had carried 1071 scants of timber (855 of chil and 216 of deodar) to the road head. He accordingly prayed for the grant of export permit, which was granted to him vide permit dated 25.1.1982 and was valid upto 15.2.1982 for export of 1071 scants of timber of the volume of 2339.51 cft. - 3 - Copies of the export permit were endorsed and sent to the Incharge, Check Posts. On the basis of the said export permit, another application was moved to the Divisional Forest Officer that he could export only 458 scants of timber under export permit and he be permitted to export 613 scants by extending validity permit. The Divisional Forest Officer, Karsog granted fresh permit, dated 16.2.19082, valid upto 28.2.1982 for export of 613 remaining scants to Yamuna Nagar via Tatapani, Samlog and Railway Station Shogi/Summer Hill. On the basis of the export permit, respondent No.1 exported only 216 scants of timber and the Divisional Forest Officer extended the validity period of the remaining 490 scants vide letter dated 24.4.1982. Respondent No.1 could not export the above stated scants and sold 15 scants of deodar to one Ram Saran, Range Officer, for consideration. 3. On checking the record of the Forest Check Post and Railway Stations, it was revealed from the railway receipts that respondent had exported 463 scants from Railway Station Summer Hill and 576 scants from Railway Station Shogi, totaling 1039 scants against the permit permitted quantity of 613 scants, which was allowed to be exported through the export permit. Thus, it was alleged that respondent No.1 exported 426 scants of timber in excess from Railway Stations and it was also exported after the validity period. During the investigation, the record of various firms of Yamuna Nagar and other places was taken into possession including the railway receipts and accordingly after investigation, the challan was filed. The case was committed to the court of the learned Sessions Judge, Shimla, who thereafter assigned the same to the learned Special Judge, who tried the respondents under the aforementioned Sections. On conclusion of the trial, all the respondents were acquitted of the charge framed against them. - 4 - 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 5. Respondent No.1 is the forest lessee while respondent No.2 Gurcharan Singh was the then Station Master, Shogi and respondent No.3 was the Assistant Station Master at Shogi, during the relevant period. Out of these three accused persons, respondent No.1, the forest lessee, and respondent No.3, the then Assistant Station Master, had died during the pendency of the appeal before this Court and as such the appeal as against them stands abated. However, the present appeal survives only as against respondent No.2, who was posted as Station Master, Railway Station, Shogi. It has to be considered as to what is the evidence as against respondent No.2. The timber in question was exported through two Railway Stations i.e. Summer Hill and Shoghi. However, no official from Railway Station, Summer Hill has been arrayed as an accused. The prosecution had examined 47 witnesses to substantiate their case, but presently the evidence of prosecution witnesses, as against respondent No.2, can be said to be material, which has to be appreciated by this Court. 6. Respondent No.2 is alleged to have issued only one receipt while the other two railway receipts were issued by respondent No.3 since deceased. The railway receipts, allegedly, issued by respondent No.2 are dated 7/8.6.1982 Ext.PW-4/D for 229 scants and Ext.PW-4/B. The railway receipt Ext.PW-4/B shows that 105 scants of timber of chil and deodar of different sizes were exported from Shogi to Jagadhari in the name of respondent No.1. There is nothing on the record to shows that these were exported by respondent No.1 himself or by his authorized agent. Railway receipt Ext.PW-4/D is proved to have been issued by respondent No.2. According to the prosecution, 229 scants of timber were exported under the said railway receipts. However, a perusal of - 5 - Ext.PW-4/D does not show the number of scants which were exported under the said railway receipt. The number of scants has not been given, however, in the column of measurement, figure 606/229 has been written. The said writing is in different ink and handwriting. The said figure does not appear in carbon copy i.e. railway receipt Ext.PW-4/D. This ambiguity has not been cleared by the prosecution by leading any evidence. 7. The learned trial Court had discussed the evidence in this regard in para 14 of the judgment and I need not reproduce the same, suffice to say that it was observed that the prosecution has failed to prove the number of scants exported under railway receipt Ext.PW-4/C. In regard to railway receipt Ext.PW-4/B, 105 scants of timber of chil and deodar of different sizes were exported from Shogi to Jagadhari but the forwarding note was not produced by the prosecution to establish that the said timber was exported under this receipt. The learned trial Court had discussed the evidence in paras 15 and 16 in this regard by referring to the number of scants and it was not proved that 229 timber scants were exported under the said railway receipt. In the statement of PW-7 Arun Kumar, one of the partners of the firm, it has come that the number of scants mentioned in the receipt was written as 129, though the case of the prosecution was that 229 scants were exported under receipt Ext.PW-4/D. The other record produced by the witnesses also does not establish that 229 scants of timber were exported under this railway receipt Ext.PW-4/D. 7. The learned trial Court had discussed the evidence in paras 14 to 18 of the judgment. There is nothing on the record to show that any criminal conspiracy was hatched by respondent No.1, forest lessee, or by respondent No.2, the then Station Master, and accordingly, this act was committed by the respondent. There is nothing on the record to show that as to - 6 - how many pieces of timber have been offered to railway authorities against the permit. Thus, it could not be established by the prosecution that excess timber was exported vide these receipts. No infirmity could be pointed out in the judgment passed by the learned trial Court in regard to respondent No.2, which may have been ignored by the learned trial Court or was not considered by the learned trial Court at the time of passing the impugned judgment. 8. In view of the above discussion, I accordingly hold that since no infirmity could be pointed out in the judgment passed by the learned trial Court, therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant as against respondent No.2 is also liable to be dismissed and the same is dismissed. The appeal as against other respondents stands abated. The bail bonds furnished by respondent No.2 stand discharged. September 6, 2010 (V.K. Ahuja), (TILAK) Judge.