STATE OF H.P. Vs. MUNSHI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of present appeal filed under S.377 CrPC, challenge has been laid to judgment dated 11.6.2009 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mandi, H.P. in Cr. Appeal No. 31 of 2006, reversing judgment of conviction dated 25.8.2006 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Chachiot at Gohar in I.F. Act No. 23-I/04/5-III/04, whereby learned trial Court, while holding the respondent-accused (hereinafter, 'accused') guilty of having committed offence punishable under Ss. 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act, convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

(2.) Facts, as emerge from the record are that on 31.1.2001, Padam Singh, Deputy Ranger, Joginder Singh and Thakur Singh, Forest Guards, and Jagat Ram and Dalip Singh Forest Workers laid a Naka on Dhangyara-Shalla Road near Village Karnala. A Fiat car bearing registration No. HIH-2009 came to be apprehended on the aforesaid Naka at about 11 pm. Allegedly, the driver of the car fled away from the spot, whereas, another occupant of the car, namely Munshi Ram (accused) came to be apprehended. Police on checking the aforesaid Car, recovered eight Deodar scants being carried in the aforesaid vehicle illegally without any valid permit. As per the prosecution case, accused disclosed to the police that Gian Chand was driver of the car. After completion of necessary codal formalities, Police registered a case against both the accused under Ss.41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act. On completion of the investigation, Police presented a Challan in the competent Court of law i.e. Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Chachiot at Gohar, who being satisfied that prima facie case exists against the accused, put notice of accusation to the accused for commission of offence punishable under Rule 20 of the Himachal Pradesh Forest Produce Transit (Land Routes) Rules, 1978 (hereinafter, 'Rules') framed under Ss.41 and 42 of the Act ibid, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

(3.) Prosecution, with a view to prove its case against the accused, examined as many as six witnesses, whereas, accused in their statements recorded under S.313 CrPC, denied the case of the prosecution in toto and claimed trial. Accused denied that on 31.1.2001, they were transporting eight scants of Deodar of different sizes in Car bearing registration No. HIH-2009, without there being any valid permit from any Forest Authority. Accused also adduced defence evidence by examining one Rakesh Kumar as DW-1.