VARINDER LAL SOOD Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment, as in all of them the same judgment, i.e. judgment dated 28th June, 2002, of learned Special Judge (Forest), Shimla, has been assailed. Two appeals, i.e. Criminal Appeal No. 444 of 2002, titled Varinder Lal Sood and another v. State of H.P., and Criminal Appeal No. 445 of 2002, titled Subhash Chand and others v. State of H.P., have been filed by some of the accused, who have been convicted and sentenced. Third appeal, i.e. Criminal Appeal No. 665 of 2002, titled as State of H.P. v. Sham Lal and Others, has been filed by the State against acquittal of some other accused persons. A case, under Sections 379, 420, 467, 468, 471, 218, 167 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act, read with Rules 11/18 and 20 of the H.P. Forest Produce Transit (Land Routes) Rules, 1978, and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, was filed against twelve persons, by Police Station Enforcement, South Zone, Shimla. It was alleged that Sham Lal Walia, respondent No.1 in the appeal filed by the State, i.e. Criminal Appeal No. 665 of 2002, who shall, hereinafter, be referred to as accused No. 1, in connivance with some forest officials, namely Bhau Ram, also a respondent in the aforesaid State appeal and hereinafter referred to as accused No.2, Kewal Ram, also a respondent in the aforesaid State appeal and hereinafter referred to as accused No.3, Shyama Nand, also a respondent in the aforesaid State appeal and hereinafter referred to as accused No.4, Shanti Swaroop, also an appellant in Criminal Appeal No.445 of 2002 and hereinafter referred to as accused No.5, Vinod Kumar, a respondent in the aforesaid State appeal and hereinafter referred to as accused No.6, Mohan Lal Ghemta, again a respondent in the aforesaid State appeal and hereinafter referred to as accused No.7, Subhash Chand, appellant in Criminal Appeal No.445 of 2002 and hereinafter referred to as accused No.8, Om Prakash (now dead), appellant in Criminal Appeal No.445 of 2002 and hereinafter referred to as accused No.9, Surinder Lal Sood (now dead), a respondent in the aforesaid State appeal and hereinafter referred to as accused No.10, Varinder Lal Sood, appellant in Criminal Appeal No.444 of 2002 and hereinafter referred to as accused No.11, and Anil Kumar, also an appellant in Criminal Appeal No.444 of 2002, hereinafter called accused No.12, illicitly felled one tree from Government forest, adjoining Khasra No.176, in village Khashdhar and thereafter obtained permits No.228/81-82 and 174/81-82 for export of 86 scants against the first permit and 156 scants against the second permit, but forged one of those permits, i.e. permit No.228/81-82 (Ex. PW-63/B), and increased the number of scants from 86 of 986 and also changed the expiry date of the permit from 31.3.1982 to 30.4.1982.

(2.) According to the prosecution, two applications, one in respect of village Khashdhar and the other in respect of village Khurshali, were submitted by accused No.1 Sham Lal, who was a petty forest contractor, to the Divisional Forest Officer, for marking trees for felling, on the private land described in those applications. Those applications were sent to the concerned Range Officer, for marking the trees, after obtaining demarcation from revenue officials. After demarcation, two trees of Deodar species were marked on Khasra No.176 in village Khashdhar and in village Khurshali some Kail trees were marked. Felling permission was granted. Accused No.1 then felled two trees and converted those trees into timber. Thereafter, he applied for grant of export permits, one in respect of Deodar scants, numbering 86, and one for Kail scants, numbering 156. Two permits were issued. Permit No.228/81-82 was issued, in respect of 86 Deodar scants. The permit is Ex. PW-4/D (carbon copy Ex. PW-63/B). Other permit was issued, in respect of Kail scants, which is Ex. PW-4/A.

(3.) While checking the record of Railway Station Shoghi, staff of Police Station Enforcement, South Zone, Shimla, came to know that during the year 1981 to 1983, timber had been exported in excess of the limit prescribed in the export permits. The permits, against which timber was found to have been exported, in excess, included the two permits, issued in favour of accused No.1. A report was lodged by SHO, Police Station Enforcement, South Zone, Shimla, for registration of the case, on the basis of which case was registered, vide FIR Ex. PW-1/B, at Police Station Enforcement, South Zone, Shimla.