STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. NAGNU RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE judgment of acquittal for offence punishable under Sections 41, 42 of the Indian Forest Act read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jogindernagar dated 16.10.2003 in P.C. No. 281 -1/2001 has been assailed by the State in the appeal.

(2.) THE facts, in brief, are that on 27.6.2001 at about 1.00 a.m. Uttam Singh, SHO along with HC Daya Ram, HC Mohan Singh, C. Kashmir Singh and Jai Chand Range Forest Officer, Jogindernagar were on nakabandi at Dhelu curve when at about 1.15 a.m. maruti van No. HP -02 - 0139 came there. It was checked and found carrying 10 scants of deodar of different sizes. The Respondents failed to produce any permit/permission for transportation of logs, therefore, 10 scants of deodar along with van were seized. The rukka was sent through C. Kashmir Singh and on that basis FIR No. 105 of 2001 was registered under Section 379 Indian Penal Code, 1860 . On completion of investigation, challan was presented against the Respondents. No. case of theft was made out against the Respondents. Notice of accusation for offence punishable under Sections 41, 42 of the Indian Forest Act read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 was put to the Respondents. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

(3.) I have heard the learned Assistant Advocate General for the Appellant and Mr. Vinod Thakur, Advocate, learned Counsel for the Respondents and have also gone through the record. It has been submitted on behalf of the State that the Court below has not properly appreciated the evidence on record and the Respondents have been wrongly acquitted. He has submitted that the case has been proved against the Respondents beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, prayer has been made for setting aside the impugned judgment and for appropriate conviction and sentence of the Respondents. The learned Counsel for the Respondents has submitted that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case against the Respondents. The learned Court below has taken a possible view from the evidence on record which requires No. interference. He has prayed for dismissal of the appeal.