STATE OF H.P. Vs. RAJINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State has challenged the judgment of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu in Criminal Case No. 105 -1/85 decided on 18 -7 -1986 whereby the accused has been acquitted of offences punishable under Ss. 41 and 42 of Indian Forest Act.

(2.) Briefly, the case is that on 10 -7 -1984, the police, Police Station, Manali, received secret information that Truck No. HPU -835 loaded with timber, had been parked in the potato ground and the destination of the same was Lahaul area of the State. On this information, A.S.I., Amer Singh proceeded to the spot. He associated Dhani Ram and Krishan Chand and intercepted the truck near B. S. L. Rest House. The timber was recovered and seized vide recovery memo. (Ex. PA). It was handed over to Shri Man Chand, Range Officer, Manali on spurdari. The timber was bearing hammer marks K -23 and K -68 pertaining to Kais and Mangarh beats. This truck was being driven by the accused at the time of interception. The accused failed to produce any document for the export of the timber. After investigation, the accused was tried under Ss. 41 and 42 of Indian Forest Act. He was acquitted by the trial Court, hence this appeal by the State. Shri Ram Murti Bisht, counsel for the State referred to the evidence on record and submitted that the offence against the accused stood proved, therefore, order of the trial Magistrate is liable to be set aside. Counsel for the parties referred to the evidence and the impugned judgment during the course of their submissions in this case.

(3.) From the perusal of the record of this case, it is clear that the accused was driving the vehicle when it was intercepted by the Police and other witnesses who had been associated by the police. The accused failed to produce any document authorizing him to transport the timber. Shri Praneet Gupta submitted that it was the incumbent for the prosecution to have found out the owner of the property since the accused not only denied having driven the truck at the relevant time but also the ownership of the timber. There is no substance in this submission of the learned Counsel for the reason that it was the accused who was caught while driving the vehicle and it was for him to produce the pass for the transportation of the timber. In addition to this, it was for him to disclose the owner of the timber which he failed to do not only during the investigation but also before the Court during the course of the trial. It was not necessary for the prosecution to have looked for the owner of the timber and of the vehicle since it was for the accused to explain not only from where he was carrying the timber and who the owner thereof was. His omission to do so establishes quite clearly that he was transporting the timber without a valid permission. Further, the timber had been lifted from two different revenue estates and it can be safely concluded that the timber pertained to certain right -holders of two different estates and the accused was carrying the same stealthily. Otherwise it was not difficult for him to explain all the circumstances.