State of H.P. vs Krishan Lal and Another

Surinder Singh, J.—State has challenged the acquittal of the Respondents under Sections 41 & 42 of the Indian Forest Act and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, allegedly transporting 32 tins of resin.

Heard and gone through the record.

In short, the prosecution case can be stated thus. On 27th September, 1998, at about 9.45 p.m., PW3 Kashmir Singh, the then Inspector/SHO, Police Station Gagret alongwith police party was present at Gagret Bazar, in connection with ''Ram-Leela'' duty. In the meantime, Truck bearing registration No. PUH-6319, being driven by Respondent Krishan Lal came from the opposite side. It was stopped. Driver told SHO that he was going to fill in the diesel in his truck, but however said Police Officer entertained some suspicion and checked the tool box of the truck with the assistance of HC Arjun Singh and C. Bal Krishan. He found 4 tins in the took box and 28 tins in the body of the truck. Said consignment was without any valid permit. During his interrogation, he disclosed that the said resin tins belonged to Respondent No. 2 Shingara Singh, a resin contractor and he was given Rs. 3,000/- for its transportation. The resin tins were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PA. Ruqa Ex.PW3/B was sent for registration of the case, which culminated into FIR Ex.PW3/C. Police prepared the site plan and matter was reported to the Forest Ranger PW2 R.K. Kaushal.

After completing the investigation, the challan was presented in the Court against the Respondents and notice of accusation was put to them. They denied the allegations and claimed that they have defence to make.

To prove its case, prosecution examined its witnesses and Respondents were also examined u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Respondents denied the circumstances which were found attendant upon them. However, no evidence in defence was led.

At the end of trial, Respondents were acquitted, on the grounds that the Respondent Shingara Singh had extracted the alleged resin tins from the forest under the permit issued by the forest department and there was no complaint from the forest department that it was a theft property and further that there was violation of any rule.

Although, PW3 Inspector/SHO Kashmir Singh testified about the recovery of resin tins from the truck in question, which was being driven by Respondent No. 1 and also proved the seizure memo Ex.PA, but forest Ranger PW2 R.K. Kaushal stated that Respondent No. 2 Shingara Singh was a resin contractor, duly registered with the forest department and he was issued permit for the extraction of resin from 358 ''Chil'' trees, by the Divisional Forest Officer, Daulatpur, out of which, the said Respondent extracted 48 tins of resin. He also stated that the forest department did not receive any report regarding the theft of resin tins from anywhere. He also proved his report Ex.PW2/A to this effect. In cross-examination, he further stated that even there was no complaint for excess extraction of resin from the trees. Further there is no evidence on record to show the distance of the places from where the resin was extracted and where the truck in question was intercepted by the police.

Transportation and sale of the resin is governed under The Himachal Pradesh Resin and Resin Products (Regulation of Trade) Act, 1861. Clause (e) of Section 4 puts the restrictions on the transportation of the resin products. It reads as under:

On and after the commencement of this Act,-

(a)....

(b)....

(c)....

(d)...; and

(e) no person other than the State Government or an authorized officer shall transport resin products manufactured in a unit to any place outside that unit without a permit issued in that behalf by such authority, in such manner and subject to such terms and conditions as may be prescribed.

Section 5 of the said Act provides for issuance of the permit for sale and transportation of the resin. A person to whom a permit is granted under Sub-section (1) of the said Section, he is also required the permit fee thereof.

Section 16 of the Act ibid is important. It puts a bar to taking the cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act except on a report in writing of the facts constituting such offence or by such other officer as may be empowered by general or special order of the State Government in that behalf.

In the instant case, admittedly, there is no complaint in writing made by the authorized officer to the Court, though cognizance was taken by the Judicial Magistrate, on the basis of the police report, submitted to him under Sections 41 & 42 of the Indian Forest Act and the Transit Rules framed thereunder and also u/s 120B of the Indian Penal Code, but such a cognizance, in my opinion, was bad in law and the entire trial against the Respondents stood vitiated including the alleged conspiracy and under Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act.

As already stated above, the transportation of the resin is governed under The Himachal Pradesh Resin and Resin Products (Regulation of Trade) Act, 1981, which provides the penalty for any breach committed under the Act. The alleged offences were committed in the course of the same transaction and it is a common challan under Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act and also u/s 120B of the Indian Penal Code, which was presented in the court below by the Police Officer u/s 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Such a challan cannot be split up. Therefore, when the trial court was not competent to take the cognizance in absence of the written complaint by the authorized officer u/s 16 of the Act aforesaid, then in no way, it can be ventilated that the Respondents could be convicted and sentenced under Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act and Penal Code. The learned Additional Advocate General did not bring in to my notice that under special or general notification the Inspector/SHO Kashmir Singh was authorized to launch the prosecution against the Respondents, for the alleged illicit transportation of resin tins.

On the critical examination of the aforesaid evidence, I find no evidence regarding conspiracy, as alleged. The provisions of Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act are not attracted in view of the specific provisions made in The Himachal Pradesh Resin and Resin Products (Regulation of Trade) Act, 1981 regarding sale and transportation and if there is any infraction of the provisions of the said Act, the cognizance of the offence is barred in absence of the written report of the authorized officer, as stated above. Therefore, for the aforesaid reasons, the acquittal of the Respondents, passed by the learned trial court cannot be interfered with. The appeal is without any merit, therefore, dismissed.

The Respondents are discharged of their bail bonds entered upon by him during the proceedings of the case.

Send down the records.