Kehr Singh and Another vs State of H.P.

Surjit Singh, J.—Petitioners are aggrieved by the judgment dated1.9.2004 of learned Additional Sessions Judge (PresidingOfficer, Fast Track Court), Hamirpur, whereby their conviction and sentence of three months imprisonment and fine of Rs. 200/-, in respect of offence under Sections 41 and 42 of Indian Forest Act, as ordered by the learned Trial Magistrate, has been upheld and affirmed, though they have been acquitted of offences, u/s 379 IPC and Section 33 of Indian Forest Act of which offences they were convicted and sentenced by the Trial Magistrate.

Petitioners were challaned by the police, u/s 379 read with Section 34 IPC and Sections 33 & 41 and 42 of Indian Forest Act. It was alleged that on 3.5.2002, around 3.00 am, a Naka had been organized by forest officials, i.e. PW-1 Narinder Singh, Range Officer, PW-2 Purshotam Singh, Block Officer, PW-3 Karam Chand, also a Block Officer and PW-4 Hari Lal, Forest Guard, in the area of village Nandal, when atractor trolley being driven by Petitioner Kehar Singh reached there. The other Petitioner was on board the tractor. There were eight logs of Pine trees in the trolley of the tractor. Petitioners could not produce any papers, in respect of those logs. The same were seized. Damage report was prepared on the spot. Petitioners told the forest officials that logs had been extracted from two Pine trees, felled in a nearby forest known as Sathwin jungle. Petitioners told forest officials that they were prepared to pay the composition fee. Forest officials went to the forest and found that two Pine trees had been recently felled. Loppings of these trees were found lying near the stumps of felled trees. On 6.5.2002 report Ext. PW-1/A was lodged with the police, on the basis of which case was registered, vide FIR Ext.PW-10/A.

Prosecution examined six witnesses to prove that the tractor was intercepted on 3.5.2002, around 3.00 or 4.00 in the morning and that from tractor eight logs of Pine trees were recovered and that the tractor was being driven by Petitioner Kehar Singh and Ramesh Chand was also on board the tractor. Owner of the tractor was also examined. He is PW-8 Mohinder Singh. He stated that he had engaged Petitioner Kehar Singh to drive the tractor, which had been intercepted by the forest officials and was impounded by the police, after registration of the case.

Trial Court held that the Petitioners were guilty ofillicitly felling trees from Sathwin forest and stealing timber of those trees and were also guilty of illegally transporting the timber. Consequently, it convicted them of offences, u/s 379 read with Section 34 IPC, Sections 33 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act and also sentenced them for the said offences.

Petitioners filed an appeal in the Sessions Court. Learned Sessions Court, on reappraisal of evidence, concluded that there was no evidence of illicit felling of trees from the aforesaid jungle and the theft of timber extracted from allegedly illicitly felled trees. However, it concluded that the Petitioners were guilty of transporting timber without any permit and thus committed an offence u/s 42 of the Indian Forest Act and upheld their conviction and sentence for the aforesaid offence.

I have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners and learned Assistant Advocate General for the Respondent-State.

There is absolutely no reason for disbelieving the testimony of forest officials, namely PW-1 Narinder Singh, Range Officer, PW-2 Purshotam Singh, Block Officer, PW-3 Karam Chand also a Block Officer and PW-4 Hari Lal as also two independent witnesses PW-5 Prem Chand and PW-6 Chint Ram. All of them have testified, with one voice, that Petitioner Kehar Singh was driving the tractor and the other Petitioner was occupying a seat on the tractor, when the tractor was intercepted in the wee hours of 3.5.2002 and that there were eight logs of Pine trees in the trolley of that tractor. No suggestion was thrown to any of these six witnesses that they had any motive to falsely implicate the Petitioners. Petitioners, in their statement u/s 313 Code of Criminal Procedure though denied that they were intercepted with the tractor and there were eight logs of Pine in the trolley of that tractor, they have not uttered a word why these witnesses, including two independent witnesses, have testified against them.

Transportation of timber or forest produce without any permit or even with a permit after sun set or before sun rise is prohibited under the Himachal Pradesh Forest Produce Transit(Land Routes) Rules, 1978. These rules have been notified under Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act and their violation is punishable with imprisonment of two years and fine up to Rs. 5,000/- or with both, per Rule 20 read with Section 42 of the Indian Forest Act. Proviso to Rule 20 says that, if illegal transportation takes place after sun set or before sun rise, penalty will be double. Petitioners having transported logs of Pine after sun set and before sun rise and also without a permit have clearly committed an offence under Rule 20 of the aforesaid Rules read with Sections 41 and 42 of Indian Forest Act. Therefore, their revision petition is dismissed.