STATE OF H P Vs. ATMA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT was tried and acquitted for violation of Rule 9 of H. P. Forest (Sale of Timber Rules) 1969, which is punishable under Rule 14 of the said Rules.

(2.) THE State has felt aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned judgment of acquittal, passed by the trial court, as such filed the instant appeal. In nut shell, the facts giving rise to this appeal are that the respondent herein, owns a 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? yes. saw-mill, which is located in Mashobra. On 12.2.1996 ASI Rupinder was busy in the investigation of two cases, pertaining to the police station. On reaching saw-mill of the respondent they found 23 scants of deodar lying there. The respondent produced the register but the said Investigating Officer did not find entry of T.D.timber in the said register, which was required as per the rules. Thus, he sent a ruqua Ex.PW-1/A to the police station, for registration of the case, on the basis of which FIR Ex.PW6/A was formally registered. The saw-mill register as well as 23 scants of deodar were taken into possession. During investigation, Narain Dass and Nilam Parkash (PWs) produced T.D.Permits of the said timber but the police found infraction of Rule 9 of the said rules, accordingly presented a challan against the respondent in the trial court for trial.

(3.) TO prove its case, the prosecution examined its witnesses and the respondent was also examined under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. His defence was that the said timber was stacked there by the permit holders in his absence, when he had gone to his village and retuned on the day when the said timber was seized by the police from his saw-mill.