Megh Singh vs State of H.P.

V.P. Bhatnagar, J.—This criminal revision is directed against an order of conviction which is not only wholly unsustainable but is also perverse. At the same time, it discloses the light-hearted and casual manner in which damage reports are made by the Forest Department and thereafter pursued in the Courts of law. To top it all, the timber belonging to the Government and seized by the forest officials has mysteriously disappeared.

Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that PW 1 Forest Guard Maya Ram was patrolling Kawari Sihal forest along with PW 6 Forest Guard Surjan Singh and PW 7 Forest Guard Mohan Singh on June 24, 1982. They found one stump of ''kail'' tree and one of ''Akrot'' (walnut) tree indicating that the trees had been cut recently. They made enquiries which disclosed that accused Megh Singh had illicitly felled those trees. Four scants of walnut were found lying at the spot. These scants were taken into possession and given on ''spurdari'' to PW 3 Shesh Ram vide spurdnama Ex. PW 1/B. Another ten scants of ''kail'' were recovered and seized from the shop of the accused and given on ''spurdari'' to PW 4 Rama Nand vide Ex. PW 1/C. The damage report Ex. PW 1/A was prepared by Forest Guard Maya Ram and signed by the other two Forest Guards and PW 2 Charan Singh. After completing the formalities, a complaint was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Mandi.

The learned trial Court convicted the accused u/s 33 of the Indian Forest Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the accused was to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, Mandi, Kullu and Lahaul-Spiti districts at Mandi, maintained the order of conviction and the sentence vide his judgment dated September 5, 1984. The present criminal revision is directed against the said judgment.

According to the very complaint filed in the Court and the testimony of the three Forest Guards mentioned above, they were on patrolling duty in Kawari Sihal forest on June 24, 1982 when they found two trees illicitly felled. It was thereafter that they made enquiries and came to know about the involvement of the accused. As stated above, four scants of walnut and ten scants of kail were then recovered by these Forest Guards. The date of patrolling viz. June 24, 1982, finds mention in the damage report Ex. PW 1/A also. Now, if the patrolling was being done on, June 24, 1982, the scants in question could not have been recovered earlier to that date. The perusal of spurdnama Ex. PW 1/B shows that four scants of walnut recovered by these Forest Guards from the Government forest were entrusted to PW 3 Shesh Ram on ''spurdari'' on June 22, 1982. This date appears in the spurdnama Ex. PW 1/B at two places. The first place is in the body of the writing and it is clear to the naked eye that the date of June 22, 1982 has been altered into June 24, 1982. He who made the above fabrication appears to have forgotten that one of the witnesses to this spuradnama had also dated his signatures and this date is completely legible as June 22, 1982. As regards the other spuradnama Ex. PW 1/C, ten scants of kail were entrusted to PW 4 Rama Nand, once again surprisingly enough, on June 23, 1982. It does not need a second thought to hold that the case made out in the complaint by the Forest Department cannot be but totally false and that under no stretch of imagination the case property could have been recovered on dates earlier than the day of patrolling of the forest resulting in the detection of the offence.

And then, Forest Guard Surjan Singh has stated on oath that fourteen scants of kail and six scants of walnut were recovered from the shop of the accused, In the next breath, he changed his statement and stated that six scants of kail and four scants of walnut were actually recovered and that all these scants had been given on ''spurdari'' to PW 4 Rama Nand vide spurdnama Ex. PW 1/C. PW 7 Forest Guard Mohan Singh, on the other hand, testified to the recovery of ten scants of kail and four of walnut having been given on ''spurdari'' to PW 4 Rama Nand. He stated categorically that no scant was entrusted to PW 3 Shesh Ram. The above testimony clearly militates against the documentary evidence disclosed by spurd-nama Ex. PW 1/B and Ex. PW 1/C as well as the statement of PW 1 Forest Guard Maya Ram. As discussed above, four scants of walnut were entrusted to PW 3 Shesh Ram vide spurdnama Ex. PW 1/B and ten scants of kail were given on spurdari to PW 4 Rama Nand vide Ex. PW 1/C.

To make the above confusion worse confounded, PW 3 Shesh Ram and PW 4 Rama Nand have both denied that any scants were given in their custody by the above-named Forest Guards. No case property was produced and exhibited during the trial of the case and, as the timber in question belonged to the Forest Department, it is plain that it stands mis-appropriated.

In view of the facts which have come to light in this case, it is not expedient to press a charge of breach of trust against the ''spurdars'' PW 3 Shesh Ram and PW 4 Rama Nand in a Court of law. But it is a fit case where the Government may consider the desirability of holding an enquiry into the conduct of the Forest Guards in question for taking such departmental action against them as it may deem proper. The senior officers who scrutinized this damage reoort and permitted it to be filed in the Court of law also cannot escape blame. Once again, it will be for the Government to consider as to what action it wants to take in the matter. The seized timber belonging to the Forest Department also needs accounting for.

Before parting with this case, two other infirmities may also be noticed.

In order to prove a charge u/s 33 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, it is mandatory that it should be proved that the Collector has caused a translation into the local vernacular of every notification issued u/s 30 to be affixed in a conspicuous place in every town and village in the neighbourhood of the forest comprised in the notification. Admittedly, no such translation as postulated in Section 31 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, has been made and the case must fail on this short ground.

Secondly, the perusal of Section 33, ibid shows that the offence is constituted when a tree leserved u/s 30 is illicitly felled. The recovery of ten scants of kail from the shop of the accused and four scants of walnut at the spot per se does not establish beyond reasonable doubt that these scants are of the s me trees, stumps of which were found in the forest while patrolling. More evidence is positively needed to prove that the accused is guilty of felling the trees in question.

For the reasons stated above, no case worth the name has been made out against the accused. The impugned judgment is, therefore, quashed and the accused acquitted. His bail bonds are discharged.

It is ordered that a copy of this judgment be sent by the Registrar of this Court to the Chief Secretary, demi-offici- ally, for taking such action as the Government may deem proper in view of the observations made above. Photo-stat copies of the damage report Ex. PW 1/A and spurdnamas Exs. PW 1/B and PW 1/C be also enclosed therewith for ready reference.