STATE OF H.P. Vs. RAVI KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State has filed this appeal against the judgement dated 25.11.1999, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Manali, District Kullu, H.P. in Criminal Complaint No. 388- 1/99/95, acquitting the respondent under Sections 32, 33 of the Indian Forest Act (for short, the Act).

(2.) THE prosecution case in brief is that on 1.9.1993 Nand Lal, Forest Guard of Patli Kuhal beat was intimated through application that respondent ­accused Ravi Kumar encroached the land and illegally cut ten pine trees. He was questioned and he confessed his guilty in writing and agreed to pay compensation amounting to Rs. 5618/- for cutting the trees, but actually did not pay. After completion of the investigation, challan was put up against the respondent and notice of accusation was put to him under Sections 32, 33 of the Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

(3.) I have heard the learned Additional Advocate General for the State and Mr. K.D. Sood, Advocate with Mr. Rajnish K. Lall, Advocate, for the respondent. The learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt, the respondent has confessed his guilt. The learned trial Magistrate has erred in acquitting the respondent. The learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned judgement and has submitted that the prosecution has failed to make out any case against the respondent. It has not been proved that from where the trees were allegedly cut. The notification, under Sections 32, 33 of the Act has not been proved. The leaned Magistrate has rightly appreciated the material on record.