STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. KAMLESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of the judgment of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra at Dharamshala, in case No. 701/83. 262111/83. 125-11/84 whereby the learned trial Judge vide his judgment dated 7/12/1984 acquitted the accused for offences under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code read with sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927.

(2.) The prosecution case, in brief, is that the accused were granted permit Ex. P.W: 1/ A for the transport of 86 quintals of Katha from Raja-ka-Bag to Delhi through Kandwal forest check post. According to the prosecution, the accused transported 53.48 quintals of Katha through this check post The rest of the Katha weighing 32.50 quintals was not transported by the accused through this check post. The prosecution, therefore, concluded that the accused transported the same through some other road in order to avoid checking on this check post and evaded the payment of tax under Section 3 of the Himachal Pradesh Taxation (On Certain Goods Carried by Road) Act. 1976 mode of payment and consequence for non-payment thereof having been prescribed under Sections 4, 10 and 11 thereof. A case was registered against the accused. it is further alleged that the accused deposited the tax on 13.11.1982 subsequent of the registration of the case. After the investigation of the case, the trial commenced which ultimately ended in the aforesaid acquittal of the accused.

(3.) The learned counsel for the parties have raised rival contentions. Shri L.S. Panta, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State of Himachal Pradesh, has very seriously asserted that the accused succeeded in transporting the Katha through any passage other than the one prescribed in the permit and thereby contravened the provisions of section 11 (3) (a) of the Himachal Pradesh Forest Produce Transit (Land Routes) Rules, 1978 enacted under sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act. 1927. Besides, the accused contravened the provisions of section 420 of the Indian Penal Code thereby cheating the State of Himachal Pradesh by non-payment of tax livable at Kandwal check post. It is further contended that the explanation of the accused is an afterthought and the payment of the tax by them was in order to escape punishment in the present case as the payment was made on 13/11/1982 after the registration of the present case against the accused. In these circumstances, the learned counsel argued, the accused have committed these offences and so they deserve to be convicted and the judgment of the trial Magistrate deserves to be set- aside.