IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 707 of 2001. Date of decision: 17.10.2008. State of H.P. ... Appellant Versus Partap Singh and another … Respondents Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant: Mrs. Shubh Mahajan, Deputy Advocate General. For the respondents: Mr. G.D. Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 1. V.K. Ahuja, J.: This appeal has been filed by the State of H.P. against the judgment of the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No. 3, Rohru, dated 8.6.1999, vide which the respondents were acquitted of the charge framed against them under Section 379 I.P.C. and under Section 33 of Indian Forest Act. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that a written complaint was sent by the Range Officer, Tikkar to the police alleging that in Tikkar Range illicit felling has taken place. The details of the illicit felling from different forests were also mentioned therein and on the basis of the same, a case was registered by the police and after investigation, the challan was filed as against the respondents who were tried by the learned trial Court leading to their acquittal as detailed above. 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - I have heard Mrs. Shubh Mahajan, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the State and Mr. G.D. Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 1 and have gone through the record. The submissions made by the learned Deputy Advocate General were that there is some evidence to show that the forest officials had recovered certain phatians from the possession of respondent No. 1 and on the basis of the said evidence, the guilt of respondent No. 1 stands proved and as such, the findings to the contrary are liable to be reversed. On a perusal of the record of the case, it is clear that the prosecution had examined six witnesses to prove their case. PW-1 Lachi Ram, Retired Forest Ranger, has stated that they received a report regarding illicit felling. He alongwith B.O. and Guard went to Tutupani and found that trees of Tosh have been illicitly cut. Then they went to a sawmill and recovered phatians vide recovery memo Ext. PW1/A. He also took into possession the Register Ext. PW1/B. The recovered phatis were given to Roshan Lal, Guard and accused could not produce any phatis. He had not stated from whom these phatis were recovered, whose sawmill was visited by them and in whose name the sawmill was being run. In cross-examination, he has stated that he does not remember as to whose sawmill was checked. He stated that the trees found cut in the forest were of Tosh, and the phatis were of Tosh. He is not aware as to how many trees have been cut. He has also stated that they have not interrogated the owners of the sawmill and his evidence, therefore, is only in the air and does not state as to from whose possession the phatis were recovered or whose sawmill was inspected by the forest officials. PW-2 Giani Ram, Retired Deputy Ranger, has stated that they went to the area and accused met them and on search, phatis of - 3 - Tosh and kail were recovered, which were given on supardari to Forest Guard Roshan vide recovery memos Ext. PW7/A and Ext. PW1/B. In cross-examination, he had stated that the number of phatis was 366. He has stated that owner of sawmill was Uttma Devi who was not interrogated. He has also stated that he cannot say if the phatis were illegal or had been received under T.D. He admitted that no damage report was issued. He has also referred to some enquiry in which it was found that the accused has brought the phatis in a truck No. HPA 2013 but he himself is not a witness to the interception of the truck or recovery of phatis from the truck, if any. PW-3 Roshan Lal, Forest Guard, has stated that they had gone to the house of Jamru, recovered 44 boxes which were identified by Piare Lal, Forest Guard. The said Jamru was called who stated that he had purchased them from the sawmill of Liak Ram, which was given to him on supardari. This evidence is not relevant since neither Liak Ram was arrayed as an accused nor the said Jamru was arrayed as an accused and no evidence is being led against these two persons. PW-4 Banka Ram has stated that the police had taken into possession the truck alongwith its document from Panna Lal, driver and he is witness to the recovery of the truck. PW-5 Jai Chand, Retired S.I. had taken into possession the truck alongwith documents, but he nowhere stated that some phatis were recovered or other boxes were taken into possession by the police. PW-6 Anant Ram, S.I./Addl. S.H.O. had prepared site plans Ext. PW6/A and Ext. PW6/B and took into possession some phatis of Deodar, while other witnesses had referred to a different variety of wood which was taken into possession. He arrested the accused but on what basis or for what offence is not clear from his statement. The evidence of the Investigating Officer or other evidence cannot be said to be sufficient to prove its case as against respondents under - 4 - Section 379 I.P.C. or under Section 33 of Indian Forest Act, that any trees were found cut or these were cut by any of the respondents or were being illegally transported by respondent No. 2 as per the prosecution story. From the above discussion, it is clear that the findings recorded by the learned trial Court holding that the prosecution has failed to prove their case calls for no interference by this Court and as such, there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellant, which is dismissed accordingly. Bail bonds furnished by respondent No. 1 stands discharged forthwith. (V.K. Ahuja), October 17, 2008 Judge (BSS)