STATE OF H.P. Vs. KASHVINDER PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the appellant ­ State of Himachal Pradesh against the judgment of the Court of learned JMIC(II), Shimla dated 27.5.1999 vide which all the three respondents therein, were acquitted of the charge framed against them under Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that on 12.10.1990 at about 4.00 P.M, H.C. Anant Ram alongwith H.C.Balak Ram was present in the area of Khel-Ka-Chaura in connection with the investigation of a case when the accused persons came in a Truck bearing registration No.HIU 4607. On suspicion, the truck was stopped and 91 scants of wood were recovered without any permit. The scants were taken in possession in the presence of four witnesses. A case was registered and the challan was filed before the trial Court which tried the respondents resulting in their acquittal.

(3.) ON a perusal of the record of the case, it is clear that the recovery memo. Ex.PW-1/A with regard to recovery of scants was prepared at the spot by HC Anant Ram and the witnesses to the recovery memo. were PWs Rup Lal and Mohan Lal. The said Anant Ram has been examined as PW-7 who stated that the vehicle was taken to Police Station and the scants were taken in possession in the presence of witnesses Rup Lal and Mohan Lal. He further stated that thereafter Pradhan Ramesh Panth was called, who also signed the recovery memo. He further stated that at that time Driver Kashvinder Pal and one Balram were in the vehicle. He further stated that during investigation, one Subhash Chand was arrested from whom the accused persons had purchased this wood. In cross-examination, he has clearly stated that at the spot, there were only two persons namely Roop Lal and Mohan Lal and Ramesh Panth Pradhan had met them on way meaning thereby that these witnesses were not at the spot when the truck was intercepted and the wood was taken in possession. He has further stated that Mohan Lal and Rup Lal were engaged by him for loading the timber. His own statement was sufficient to prove that the recovery memo. was prepared at the spot and these witnesses had signed it later on.