STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. SURESH KUMAR AVASTHI, S/O. SH. DUNI CHAND AVASTHI, R/O. PHUNGSAL, PS BAIJNATH, DISTT. KANGRA, PRESENTLY DEPUTY RANGER, HP FOREST CORPORATION DEPOT MANTARUWALA, PAONTA SAHIB AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the State is directed against the judgment dated 25.9.2003 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Paonta Sahib in Cr. Case No. 152/2 of 1997, whereby he acquitted the accused persons of having committed offences punishable under Sections 409, 468, 411, 471 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act. Accused Suresh Kumar, Bhagwan Singh, Joginder Singh, Pawan Kumar and Amar Nath were the employees of H.P. State Forest Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation). Accused No. 6 Kamal Kishore Behal was a Timber Merchant. The proved facts of the case are that Kamal Kishore Behal purchased 120 logs of wood from the Corporation. 36 logs were of Deodar and their volume was 1.014 cubic meters, 84 logs were of Sal (Teak) and their volume was 4.725 Cubic Meters. It is also not disputed that this timber was loaded in truck No. HPN 922. Between 4.45 pm and 5.00 pm, as is apparent from Rawana Challan Ext. A -1 and Ext. A -2. The truck left the depot of the Corporation and therefore, it was weighed at Gondpur at about 5.35 pm in the Weigh Bridge of a private agency.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is that the forest officials, including PW -1 Karan Singh Forest Guard, received secret information that excess timber was being carried in truck in question. Therefore, the truck was intercepted at Behral barrier at about 8.00 pm. The timber from the truck was unloaded. 120 logs were found being transported but when these logs were measured, deodar timber was found to be 3.368 cubic meters i.e. there was excess deodar timber of 2.354 cubic meters. Similarly, the Sal timber on measurement was found to be 9.233 cubic meters as against 4.725 cubic meters loaded i.e. the excess timber was 4.408 cubic meters. Though the number of the logs was the same but the volume of the timber was much in excess which clearly indicates that either the measurements had not been done correctly at the depot or the timber had been changed in between.

(3.) THE prosecution case is that when the truck was intercepted at Behral barrier, the driver and the cleaner of the truck ran away from the spot. This would clearly indicate that even if they were not guilty they knew something more and therefore, wanted to run away from the Forest Guards. They were neither arrayed as accused nor examined as prosecution witnesses. The Investigating Officer in his statement stated that though he had associated the driver and the cleaner but he did not record their statements. This totally shatters the prosecution case. If the driver and the cleaner had run away then they should have been arrayed as accused. If they were not to be arrayed as accused then they had to be prosecution witnesses.