STATE OF H.P. Vs. SATYA DEV SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State is in appeal against the judgment dated 25.2.1997 of the learned Special Judge (Forest), Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, whereby the respondents herein who shall hereinafter be referred to as 'the accused' (denoted as A1, A2, A3, so on and so forth), were tried for the offences under Sections 379, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 33, 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and were ultimately acquitted.

(2.) THE law enforcing machinery was set in motion in this case on the basis of complaint, Ex. PW.1/A, dated 8.3.1987, made by Shri Gurbux Singh, Dy. Supdt. of Police, Enforcement, South Zone, Shimla, which reads as, follows :

(3.) SHORN of details the factual matrix pf the prosecution case is that there are two types of forests in the State of Himachal Pradesh, one 8wned by the Government and other by private proprietors. During the year 1976 -77, A -5 Kewal Ram Sharma entered into ¢agreements with different proprietors for sale of Cheel, Kail and Rai trees standing in their private lands for felling under the 10 Years Felling Programme in accordance with the Land Preservation Act. Thereafter, he moved the concerned authorities of Forest Division, Chopal, for grant of permission in favour of the individual proprietors, for sale and felling of those trees in his favour being the private sale contractor. In such process, the sold trees which were to be felled, were to be marked by the Forest Department for such felling. The allegations, as per the prosecution, are that A -5 Kewal Ram Sharma, in conspiracy with other accused except A -6 Krishan Singh Ranta, who were at the relevant time posted in the Forest and Revenue Departments of the State Government, in the area of Chopal, felled 386 trees of Cheel, Deodar, Kail and Rai, illicitly from the Government Forest, situate in the vicinity of the lands belonging to the individual private proprietors, which were the subject matter of felling under the aforesaid 10 Years Felling Programme. Further, the case of the prosecution is that thereafter, A -5 Kewal Ram Sharma, who could not in the mean time fell all the trees, sold the remaining trees to A -6 Krishan Singh Ranta, who was also a forest contractor.