STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. PRITTAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondents were sent up for trial, in the court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nalagarh, District Solan, H.P., for the offences under Sections 379 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act read with Sections 4 and 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Resin and Resin Products (Regulation of Trade) Act, 1981, ( in short the Act) for allegedly transporting 321 resin tins, without permit.

(2.) IN brief, the prosecution case is that on 27.7.1994, at about 5.30 a.m., Inspector/ S.H.O. Gurmeet Singh was on patrolling duty alongwith other police party. He intercepted the Truck No.HP-12-2055 being driven by Prittam Singh respondent and Baldev Raj respondent sitting besides him and discovered that the resin of above quantity was being transported. A Rukka Ext.PW10/A was sent to the Police Station, on the basis of which FIR Ext.PW10/B was registered. Police prepared site plan Ext.PW12/A. The case property alongwith vehicle in question were seized vide memos Exts.PW1/A and B. On pointing out of the respondents the place from where the resin tins were loaded were shown and memos Exts.PW7/A and B were prepared. The documents of the vehicle in question were taken into possession and after recording the statement of the witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challan was put up in the court for trial. The learned trial court on the completion of the trial, held that no offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code was made out, however, it stood established on the record that the resin was being transported by the respondents in the truck, but the complaint was not filed by the duly authorised person, therefore, in view of the bar under Section 16 of the Act, the court cannot take the cognizance.

(3.) MR . Ashutosh Burathoki, learned Additional Advocate General, for the appellant has vehemently argued that once it has been proved that the respondents were transporting the resin without any valid permit, the trial court ought to have convicted the accused under Section 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act. Since it was not done, therefore, the impugned judgment is unsustainable.