(1.) THIS is an appeal filed against the judgment of acquittal passed in Criminal Case No. 251-3 of 1990 RBT No. 127-3 of 1993/91 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate on 19.8.1999. In brief, the facts of the case giving rise to the instant appeal are that Shri C.M. Sharma, Range Forest Officer, Sarahan alleged that during the night of 29th May, 1990 at about 9.00 p.m, he was informed by Shri Bhupinder Singh Forest Guard Wild Life Division, Saharan that a truck was being loaded at the saw mill of Shri Kasang at Sarahan. On receiving this message, he along with Sadh Ram and Forest Guard Bhupinder Singh visited the spot and found that truck bearing registration number HIS 2375 was loaded with the timber of Rai species and it was about to start. Respondent Kanwal Ram was the Driver along with another occupant sitting in the vehicle. Krishan Kumar who was said to be the Munshi of respondent Sunil Kumar was also present. In the meanwhile, Alam Singh Forest Guard Incharge-Aviary and Pheasentry- Sarahan was also called who visited the spot. During the investigation, the respondents were found present on the spot and 121 logs of Rai were found loaded in the Truck and 10 Sawan logs were lying near the saw mill.
(2.) THE Range officer demanded permit, which the respondents could not produce. It is further alleged that Shri Anil Kumar respondent had produced cash memos of the firm M/s Anil Kumar firm, Lakkar Bazar, Shimla but the timber loaded in the truck did not tally with it. Further, there was no endorsement of Dhali check post. The timber also did not bear the hammer mark. Respondent Kasang Nargu was the owner of the saw mill. He also came on the spot and was asked to produce the saw mill register but the said timber was not found entered into it. Therefore, the register was taken into possession. Statements of the respondents were recorded which revealed that the timber was brought in the aforesaid truck by Krishan Kumar about four days back to the saw mill and in the morning of 29-5- 1990, respondent Sunil Kumar had asked Kasang Nargu to saw the timber on assurance to produce the permit. In the mean while, respondent Sunil Kumar also reached the spot and told the Range officer aforesaid that the timber was brought to the saw mill by Shri Tarsem Lal. Since none of the persons could produce the permission, as such, damage report was chalked out. The timber was taken into possession. It is alleged in the complaint that the respondents had confessed the guilt and signed the Iqwal-nama but due to darkness and late night, the measurement of the timber was taken next day in the PWD Rest House. The information, regarding the seizure of the timber was also sent to the Court. Breach of Rule 5 11 (i) (ii) (iii) of H.P. Forest Produce Transit (Land Route) Rules, 1978 was alleged which is punishable under Section 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act but and against respondent Kasang Nargu, owner of the saw mill, he is alleged to have committed the breach of Rule 14 (IV) wrongly mentioned as Rule 15 (IV) of the H.P. River Rule, 1971 which is punishable under Rule 19 of the Rules aforesaid.
(3.) THEY denied the allegations. Accordingly, the trial started . The prosecution examined six witnesses to prove its case. The respondents were also examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Their case was of denial simplicitor. During the course of evidence, it also came in the evidence that the seized timber scants belonged to one Tarsem Lal who had produced the T.D. Permit. On going through the record and after appreciating the evidence, the learned trial Court acquitted all the accused persons on the ground that the evidence of the prosecution is contradictory and the statement of the complainant was not corroborated by any of the witnesses. Further, Purshotam Dass, aforesaid did not support the case of the prosecution. Accordingly, the respondents were acquitted and this judgment is under attack in this appeal.