STATE OF H.P. Vs. JAI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State is in appeal against judgment dated 20.12.1999 passed by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandi in Case No.58-III of 94. The respondents were prosecuted for having committed offence under Sections 32, 33, 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act. It has been alleged that on 28.1.1994 truck No.HIE 1537 was stopped by Nika Ram Forest Guard and on checking it was found carrying 52 bags of charcoal, each bag weighing 30 Kg., 33 sleepers of deodar, 3 sleepers of kail. The truck was being driven by respondent Ram Dev and Jai Singh respondent was sitting with him in the truck. The respondents were asked to produce the documents for carrying timber and charcoal but they could not produce. It was found that respondents were transporting charcoal, deodar and kail sleepers without any export permit during night. Damage report Ex.PW-1/A was prepared, truck along with charcoal and sleepers were taken to range office Panarsa. DFO, Mandi was informed and the truck was unloaded at Sale Depot, Mandi Forest Division. The respondents allegedly confessed having committed offence vide Ex.PW-1/C. During investigation one tree of Deodar was found to have been cut from Khasra No.8 D.P.F Sakroha. After completion of investigation respondents were challaned, notice of accusation was put to the respondents under Sections 32, 33, 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act., who pleaded not guilty. The prosecution has examined nine witnesses. The respondents in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the case of the prosecution and pleaded their innocence. They did not lead any evidence in defence. The learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate acquitted the respondents on 20.12.1999, hence State is in appeal.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. The learned Addl. Advocate General has submitted that the Court below has misconstrued, misinterpreted the material on record. The prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The respondents have confessed the offence. The learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate has wrongly acquitted the respondents. The learned counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned judgment and has submitted that prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case. The respondents have been falsely implicated in the case. The learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate has taken a possible view from the material on record.

(3.) PW -2 Lal Chand Forest Guard has stated that in his presence only charcoal and timber was given on sapurdari and he is not aware of other proceedings. PW-3 Kirti Singh, Dy. Range Officer has stated that damage report was prepared by Forest Guard. In cross-examination he has stated that there was one person in the truck but he is not aware of his name. He has shown his ignorance whether owner of the truck was driving the vehicle at the time of occurrence.