AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Surinder Singh, Judge
The State came in appeal against the judgment of acquittal against the respondents passed by the learned trial Court in Criminal Case No. 26/2 of 2003, decided on 28.4.2005, under Sections 41 & 42 of the Indian Forest Act and Rule 20 of the H.P. Forest Produce Transit (Land Routes) Rules, 1978. Heard and gone through the evidence on record.
The respondents were put on trial on the allegations that on 11.5.2002, at about 5.30 a.m at the place known as Gajrot, the respondents were found illegally transporting, 81 sleepers of different sizes, out of which 74 of Deodar and 7 of Rai species, in truck bearing registration No. HP-25-0903 without permit. The truck aforesaid was being driven by Ganga Singh (since deceased) and Nand Kishore (respondent) was found sitting besides him. PW 15 Sub Inspector, Bansi Lal, the then SHO of Police Station Renukaji was heading the police party. He had intercepted the said truck in the early hours of day. At the place aforesaid, neither Ganga Singh nor Nand Kishore could produce any document of permission for transporting the timber. The measurement of the timber was taken. The timber in question alongwith the truck were taken into possession vide memo Ext. PW1/A. 2. Ruka Ext. PW2/B was sent for registration of the case which ultimately culminated into FIR. Ganga Singh as well as Nand Kishore both were arrested. During interrogation, they also pointed out the place from where the timber was loaded in the truck. To this effect, memo Ext. PW3/A was prepared followed by site plan Ext. PW16/B. DFO, Renukaji was also informed. The timber in question was given on supurdari to Block Officer Babu Ram. The documents of the vehicle were also taken into possession. During interrogation, Ganga Singh and Nand Kishore disclosed the names of other co-accused having complicity in crime. They were also arrested. Later, all the accused were granted bail.
After completing the investigation, challan was presented against the respondents for their trial. Notice of Accusation was put to each of them for the offences aforesaid, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
To prove its case, the prosecution examined its witnesses. Respondents were also examined u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They denied the allegations, but however did not lead any evidence in defece.
At the end of trial, all the accused were acquitted on the grounds that the prosecution failed to prove that the police party had put a Naka as alleged by them, the rapat of their departure was not placed on record and there has been material contradictions in their statements with respect to time of departure from the police station.
I have reappraised the evidence on record and find perversity in the judgment of acquittal qua accused-respondent Nand Kishore for the reason besides Ganga Singh, driver; both of them were caught red handed and arrested for illicit transport of the timber. They were produced before the Magistrate, later granted bail. Ganga Singh is dead but respondent Nand Kishore owe explanation as to why and under what circumstances, he was occupant of the vehicle in question loaded with un-permitted timber. He was identified by PW 15 Sub Inspector Bansi Lal and PW 16 ASI Madan Lal during the trial coupled with the statement of PW 1, Head Constable Om Pal Singh. Therefore, non production of the report of departure of the police party and timing is absolutely irrelevant in this case. The trial Court has attached undue importance to it. The fact remains that the truck in question was loaded with timber which was being driven by Ganga Singh and Nand Kishore was the occupant thereof. The presence of Nand Kishore has not been disputed in cross-examination of above witnesses. To this extent, the judgment of acquittal qua Nand Kishore is perverse and is liable to be set aside whereas under Sections 41 & 42 of the Indian Forest Act and Rule 20 of the H.P. Forest Produce Transit (Land Routes) Rules, 1978 qua other respondents, no interference is called for. Therefore, for the reasons aforesaid, the judgment of acquittal qua Nand Kishore is set aside. He is held guilty and stands convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act and Rule aforesaid.
Shri Deepak Kaushal, learned Counsel for the respondents confronted with the above position was heard on behalf of the convict on the point of sentence. He prayed to take a lenient view on the ground that the alleged offence was committed more than 10 years ago; the convict is a poor person and the sole bread earner of his family; there is no evidence that he is involved in any other similar offence after the alleged offence.
Shri A.K. Bansal, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the sentence in accordance with law may be imposed.
Rule 20 of the H.P. Forest Produce Transit (Land Routes) Rules, 1978 framed under Sections 41 & 42 of Indian Forest Act, 1927 as amended up to date, provides imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with fine which may extent to Rs. 5000/or with both and the forest produce being transported may also be seized and dealt with under the provisions of the Indian Forest Act. If the offence is committed after sunset or before sunrise, or after resistance to the lawful authority or where the offender has been previously convicted of like offence, the penalty is doubled.
In the instant case, according to Investigating Officer PW-15 Bansi La,l the truck was apprehended after the sun rise. The truck in question was confiscated and auctioned.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that illicit transport is still rampant in the State, the convict Nand Kishore cannot be leniently dealt with. However, keeping in view the fact that he also remained in custody during investigation, therefore, he is sentenced to undergo imprisonment till rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-. In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo imprisonment for a period of two months. The fine amount be deposited before the trial Court on or before 7th April, 2012, failing which the trial Court shall take coercive steps to commit him to jail in default of fine as aforesaid. So far as the other convicts-respondents are concerned, there is no ground for interference in the judgment of acquittal as they are acquitted as borne out from the record. They are discharged of their bail bonds entered upon by them at any stage during the proceedings of this case. The appeal is partly allowed as aforesaid and stands accordingly disposed of.