IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No.421 of 2000 Decided on : October 26, 2010 State of H.P. …Appellant. Versus Puran Chand and another …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellant : Mr. Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General, and Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Additional Advocate General. For the Respondents : Mr. G.D. Verma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. B.C. Verma, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Ashwani Pathak, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) State has appealed against the judgment dated 18th April, 2000 of learned Special Judge (Forests), Shimla, whereby respondents Puran Chand and Kishan Chand, who were tried for offences, under Sections 379, 467, 468, 218, 420, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 33, 41, 42 of the Indian Forest Act, Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 14 of H.P. Prevention of Specific Corrupt Practices Act, have been acquitted. 2. A case was registered vide FIR No.26 of 1988 at Police Station (Enforcement), South Zone, Shimla, on the Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… report Ex. PW-2/C of Police Sub Inspector Dalip Singh, against the present respondents. Formal FIR is Ex. PW- 12/B. As per report Ex.PW-12/C, on 17th December, 1988, when Sub Inspector Dalip Singh, accompanied by HC Nari Ram (PW-12), was present at Kufri, in connection with investigation of another case, he received information that two trees had been illicitly felled in Khanoh Nullah Government forest. He accompanied by said PW-12 Nari Ram and one Deputy Ranger Chharandu Ram (PW-1) proceeded to the forest. On the way, two independent witnesses, namely Ajit Singh (PW-7) and Inder Singh (PW-8) had been associated. On reaching the spot, it was found that two trees, one of Deodar and one of Kail, had been felled. Respondent Puran Chand was present on the spot. Two persons, named Daulat Ram and Hira Lal (PW-15), were also present on the spot. On enquiry, respondent Puran Chand told that trees had been sanctioned in his favour, under Timber Distribution Scheme. 15 sleepers of Kail were available on the spot. Those were measured and taken into possession. Respondent Puran Chand told said Sub Inspector Dalip Singh that certain timber he had already carried to his house in the orchard. That house was searched and 18 sleepers of Deodar and six sleepers of Kail were recovered from that house and the orchard. Entire recovered timber was seized. …3… 3. During the course of investigation, it was found that trees had been felled by respondent Puran Chand, in connivance with respondent Kishan Chand, Forest Guard of the concerned Beat. Respondent Kishan Chand, with a view to saving his skin, issued an ante-dated Damage Report, after coming to know that a case had been registered. He dated that report 14th December, 1988. The same is Ex. PW-2/A. 4. Site, where the trees were found felled, had been got demarcated from PW-14 Bidhi Singh Kanoongo, who reported vide demarcation report Ex. PW-3/A that the stumps of the felled trees stood on Government forest. Respondent Puran Chand could not produce any permit, indicating that the trees had been sanctioned in his favour, under Timber Distribution Scheme. 5. On being challaned, both the respondents were supplied with the copies of the challan and the documents submitted therewith. They were, thereafter, charged with the aforesaid offences. They pleaded not guilty to the charge. Therefore, they were put on trial. 6. Prosecution examined HC Nari Ram, who by then had been promoted as ASI, as PW-12, one of the labourers engaged by Puran Chand to carry timber from the forest to his orchard, namely PW-6 Dhian Singh, and Hira Lal (PW- 15), engaged as Sawyer by respondent Puran Chand. Prosecution also examined Kanoongo, who carried out …4… demarcation, namely PW-14 Bidhi Singh. Some officials from the Forest Department were also examined. Chharandu Ram, Block Forest Officer, who accompanied Sub Inspector Dalip Singh to the spot, was examined as PW-1. Dalip Singh expired and, therefore, he was not examined. 7. Respondent Kishan Chand denied that he was involved in the felling of the trees or that he had conspired with Puran Chand to facilitate felling of trees by him. Respondent Puran Chand denied that he had felled trees from Government land or that any timber was recovered from his house. Trial Court acquitted the respondents, holding that it had not been established that the trees had been felled from Government land. 8. We have heard the learned Senior Additional Advocate General as also the learned counsel representing the respondents and gone through the record. 9. We may notice, at the very outset, that there is absolutely no evidence, indicating that there was a conspiracy between respondent Kishan Chand (Forest Guard) and respondent Puran Chand. There is no evidence on record, showing that Damage Report Ex. PW-2/A had been issued by respondent Kishan Chand, after the registration of case on 17th December, 1988. Report Ex. PW-2/A appears to have been issued by respondent Kishan Chand on 14th December, 1988. Allegation of the prosecution is that this report was issued subsequent to the …5… registration of the case, but was ante-dated. There is absolutely no evidence in support of this allegation. 10. As regards second respondent Puran Chand, though in the earliest version Ex. PW-12/C, on the basis of which case was formally registered vide FIR Ex. PW12/B, it is mentioned that respondent Puran Chand was present on the spot, at the time when Dalip Singh accompanied by HC Nari Ram and Chhrandu Ram (PW-1) went to the spot, yet none of the witnesses, including PW-12 Nari Ram and PW-1 Chhrandu Ram, stated that respondent Puran Chand was on the spot. Rather, PW-1 Chharandu Ram, specifically stated that respondent Puran Chand was not on the spot. Absence of respondent Puran Chand from the spot falsifies prosecution version that he claimed on the spot that the trees had been felled by him and that he had been issued a permit, under the Timber Distribution Scheme of the State Government for felling those trees. 11. Demarcation, in this case, was carried out by Field Kanoongo, namely PW-14 Bidhi Singh, though as per instructions of the Revenue Department, contained in Land Code, demarcation is required to be carried out by a Revenue Officer not below the rank of Assistant Collector 1st Grade, when Government land is involved. Also, statement of PW-14 Bidhi Singh suggests that the site, which he demarcated, was probably different from the site from which the trees, in question, had allegedly been felled. …6… According to this witness, stumps of the felled trees on the demarcated land were old and decayed. Prosecution’s case is that the trees had been felled recently and converted into sleepers by PW-15 Hira Lal, who had been engaged as Sawyer by respondent Puran Chand. In view of the abovestated position, we do not find this to be a fit case to interfere with the judgment of acquittal. Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. ( Surjit Singh ), J October 26, 2010(sd) ( Rajiv Sharma ), J