IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Cr.MMO No. 142 of 2009 Judgment reserved on : 24.12.2009 Date of decision : 22. 2. 2010 Tula Ram and others …Petitioners. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh ....Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ? Yes For the Petitioners : Mr. M.S.Guleria, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. A.K.Bansal, Additional Advocate General. __________________________________________________________ Kuldip Singh, Judge The petitioners have filed this petition against the judgment dated 16.7.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Chamba in Criminal Revision No. 8/2008 modifying the order dated 19.5.2008 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Chamba in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 3-IV/99. 2. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioners had filed an application for initiation of legal proceedings against erring officials and to handover the case property along with Rs.1000/- to the petitioners. _____________________ 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? yes 2 It has been alleged that criminal case No. 44-II/81. 3-3/81 was decided on 31.5.1983. The police during the investigation had taken into possession timber from one Mussadi Ram father of petitioners which was handed over to the Forest Department, Churah Forest Division on spurdari. Mussadi Ram was acquitted and the case property was ordered to be returned to Mussadi Ram. The judgment passed by the learned trial Court was upheld by the High Court and the Supreme Court. 3. Mussadi Ram had died in the year 1993. On 17.3. 1998 the petitioners had approached the concerned Divisional Forest officer, Churah for handing over the case property and Rs. 1000/- which was ordered to be released in favour of Mussadi Ram, but the concerned official has not returned the case property. It appears case property has been mis-appropriated, in these circumstances the application was filed. 4. The application was resisted by the State by filing reply in which preliminary objections of locus-standi, limitation, maintainability and laches were taken. On merits, it has been admitted that in the criminal case, the accused were acquitted. The timber was taken into possession by the Investigating Officer and same was handed over to Mohni Ram on spurdari, the then Deputy Ranger and Incharge of Salooni check post. The order was made in favour of one Hans Raj also. Tula Ram had approached the office of Divisional Forest Officer, Churah in connection with the case property and an amount of Rs.1000/- was paid to him. 5. The Divisional Forest Officer, Churah had made his best efforts to trace the property. As per record on 4.4.1983, SHO, had applied to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamba for auction of the case property as the same was subject to natural decay. The application was 3 contested by accused and was dismissed on 14.4.1983. Mohni Ram, Deputy Ranger handed over the property to his successor, but both the officials reported to have died after retirement. The case property has been destroyed as there is rotten timber lying in the compound of Forest Check Post, Salooni. The petitioners cannot take advantage of their own acts. 6. The learned trial Court on 19.5.2008 held that petitioners are entitled to compensation which comes to Rs. 5,067/- i.e. equivalent to the value of the recovered timber and, therefore, respondent State was directed to pay Rs. 5067/- compensation to the petitioners. In revision, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Chamba vide judgment dated 16.7.2009 allowed 6% interest per annum from January, 1984 on the amount of Rs. 5067/- till payment. The petitioners have assailed the judgment dated 16.7.2009 in this Court and have prayed for setting-aside of the impugned judgment, alternatively liberty to approach Civil Court for adjudication. They have also submitted in further alternative that an amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- may be ordered to be paid to the petitioners being the value of the timber. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. Mr. M.S.Guleria, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the State has not returned the case property to Massudi Ram or petitioners despite the order dated 31.5.1983. It has been submitted that the market value of the property in question is now Rs. 6,00,000/- and, therefore, the State is liable to pay Rs. 6,00,000/- to the petitioners, in the alternative, prayer has been made 4 that liberty may be given to the petitioners to approach the Civil Court for adjudication of their rights. 8. The perusal of order dated 31.5.1983 in criminal case No. 44-II/81.3-3/81 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Chamba indicates that four persons namely Hans Raj, Tula Ram, Bias Dev alias Biaso and Mussadi Ram were prosecuted under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. The learned Judicial Magistrate acquitted all the accused and ordered the return of case property to Mussadi and Hans Raj. The sum of Rs. 2000/- received was also ordered to be returned to Tula Ram and Hans Raj. In the order dated 31.5.1983 the apportionment of the case property ordered to be returned to Mussadi and Hans Raj has not been made. There is no order of return of any amount to Mussadi. 9. It is not the case of the petitioners that the market value of 26 trees of class of Deodar converted into the timber allegedly taken from Mussadi Ram was not Rs.5067/- in the year 1983-84. The petitioners are claiming present market value of the case property. The two courts below have allowed the compensation amounting to Rs. 5067/- to the petitioners equivalent to the market value of the timber allegedly recovered from Mussadi Ram in the year 1983-84. In Smt. Basavva Kom Dyamangouda Patil Vs. State of Mysore and another (1977) 4 SCC 358, it has been held that where the property is stolen, lost or destroyed and there is no prima facie defence made out that the State or its officers had taken due care and caution to protect the property, the Magistrate may, in an appropriate case, where the ends of justice so require, order payment of the value of the property. The 5 application for return of case property or value thereof cannot be converted into a suit by a criminal court to allow compensation at the current market rate. In case the aggrieved party is not satisfied by the order of the criminal court, it is open to such party to approach the civil court for appropriate relief in accordance with law. The petitioners are praying for current market rate of the case property. The two courts below have allowed compensation equivalent to the market value of the case property of the year 1983-84. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Chamba has allowed interest at the rate of 6% per annum from January 1984 onwards on the amount of Rs. 5067/- till payment. There is no illegality in the impugned judgment. 10. No other point was urged. 11. The result of the above discussion, there is no merit in the petition which is accordingly dismissed. It is open to the petitioners to approach the Civil Court in accordance with law for their alleged grievance. February 22 , 2010 . ( Kuldip Singh ), (GRS) Judge.