IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.Rev. No.77 of 2011. Date of Decision: 16.6.2011. _______________________________________________ Prakash Chand. ….Petitioner. Versus. State of H.P. ….Respondent. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the petitioner: :Mr.G.R.Palsra, Advocate. For Respondent: :Mr. P.K.Sharma, Addl. Advocate General with Ms.Shubh Mahajan, Dy. Advocate General. Dev Darshan Sud, J.(Oral). The petitioner has been convicted for offences under Section 42 of the Indian Forest Act. He was charged for offences under Section 379 I.P.C. and Section 42 of the Indian Forest Act. 2. The prosecution case is that PW4 ASI. Des Raj , LHC PW7 Kishori Lal and Constable PW1 Jagdish Chand were present at Sarandha Nalla on 15.5.2001 at around 10.30 a.m. A maruti car came from Gohar side. This car did not have number plate in the front. The car had dark glasses. So much so, even the windshield was black. The registration number could be read from the rear plate as No.H.P.33- 3055. This car was checked and thirteen scants of timber were found Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment.yes. 2 inside. The petitioner was found driving this car. The learned trial Court on the evidence brought before it, convicted the petitioner for offences under Section 42 of the Indian Forest Act holding that there was evidence to show that the timber, in fact, was stolen. 3. The defence taken by the petitioner herein that no independent witness was associated and, therefore, the entire case was doubtful, was rejected by the two courts below and rightly so as it was found that the police party was present near a Nalla where there were no houses or any habitation nearby. The version of the police was corroborated by PW4 Des Raj. The Court did not find any infirmity in the cross-examination of these witnesses and proceeded to convict the petitioner herein. 4. The petitioner is now in revision. The submissions made by the petitioner in this revision have already been decided by the learned trial Court/appellate Court. Learned counsel submits that there is contradiction in the statement of the prosecution witnesses. He submits that the testimony of the police personnel cannot form the basis of conviction. In addition, emphasis has been made on the fact that there was no independent witness. 5. Adverting to the second part first, the fact situation does not warrant this submission. The first submission that the police personnel cannot be relied upon, the proposition as urged, in any event negative by the Supreme Court in Karamjit Singh Vs. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 2003 S.C. 1311. This revision petition is, therefore, rejected. 6. On the aspect of the sentencing, what I find is that since the petitioner has been acquitted for offences under Section 379 3 I.P.C., it would be in the fitness of things if the sentence of imprisonment is set aside and instead substituted by fine of Rs.10,000/- to be paid to the State Forest Department which shall utilize it for the purpose of protection of environment. Such amount be deposited before the trial Court within a period of two months from today. On such deposit being made, it shall be paid to the Forest Department which shall use it for the purpose as directed above. In case of non deposit of fine, the sentence of imprisonment shall revive and the trial Court shall faithfully and duly execute the sentence. The petition is disposed of. All miscellaneous applications are also disposed of. (Dev Darshan Sud), Judge. June 16, 2011(R)