KAMAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Kaman Singh, a Forest Guard, Satrukha Forest Beat, Kutlehar Forests, District Una, has preferred this petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying for expunction of adverse remarks recorded in paragraph 8 of the judgment passed by Judicial Magistrate (I), Hamirpur, in case No. 6 -IH/89, decided on December 7, 1991 under sections 32/33 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927.

(2.) A case under sections 32/33 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 was instituted against four persons, namely, Sarotu Ram, Bakshi Ram, Bant Ram and Smt. Leela Devi in the trial Court. The allegations against the aforementioned accused were that on 6 -5 -1988, the original accused No, 4, Leela Devi bad engaged other co -accused for construction of verandah by breaking upon Government land in Government Forest of Cheli Satrukha on an area of 30 x 9. The petitioner who was Incharge of Satrukha Forest Beat, on his spot visit found the aforesaid encroachment in the Government Forest and issued damage report against the original accused persons. The matter was reported by him to the higher authorities and complaint was filed by Block Forest Officer, Barsar Block, Kutlehar Forests, duly counter -signed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Una Forest Division, Una.

(3.) Five witnesses including the petitioner, who figured as PW 2, were, examined by the prosecution and accused were examined under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The trial Judge has not accepted the prosecution case and acquitted the accused for the alleged offence. While acquitting the accused, the trial Judge has, however, made the adverse remarks about the conduct of the petitioner and the Divisional Forest Officer, Una. In paragraph 8 of the judgment, it is stated as below; "In the light of the aforesaid evidence, the prosecution case has no merit at all It Is most unfortunate that due to misconduct of the forest officials, the accused had to suffer the agony of long trial in court for an act which was not at all offence under the Forest Act or in any other law The present challan was filed In court on 21 -4 -1 89 and from 25 -5 -1989 right uptil now, the accused had been facing trial in this Court. In my opinion, there was no reasonable ground for making accusation against any of the accused and as such I find It to be a fit case where the complainant should be required to pay compensation to accused for such false accusation. Accordingly, therefore, it is ordered that notices be issued to Forest Guard Kaman Singh of block forest office, Barsar Block, Kutlehar Forests and Divisional Forest Officer, Una Forest Division Una to appear in person and to show cause why they should not pay compensation to each of the accused for filing frivolous and false complaint against the accused, for which separate proceedings be started. A copy of this judgment be placed in that proceeding - It is with that part of the judgment, I am now concerned with in this revision petition.