AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Surjit Singh, J.—By this judgment, we are disposing of two appeals, one filed by the State against the acquittal of two of the seven accused, in Corruption Case No. 7-S/7 of 1994, in the Court of Special Judge (Forests), Shimla, and the other by five other accused-convicts, who have been convicted, in the same case, vide judgment dated 30th December, 2000. Since both the appeals arise out of the same judgment delivered in the same case, we are deciding them by a common judgment.
First, we may notice the case of the prosecution. One Sita Ram, examined as PW-24, resident of village Sarkali, Tehsil Chopal, District Shimla, sought permission to fell trees, standing on his private land. That application was processed. His land was demarcated by revenue officials. Nine trees of Kail species were found on his land, which were marked. Felling permission was granted in favour of said Sita Ram. He felled the marked trees and converted them into 118 scants, having volume of 437.97 cft. Sita Ram sold the timber, on the spot, to Dhanna Ram, who was impleaded as accused No. 1, in the aforesaid corruption case. Dhanna Ram, it appears, was a partner of the firm, named and styled as M/s Sita Ram Dhanna Ram.
Application was submitted to the forest authorities, on behalf the aforesaid firm, for permission to export aforesaid 118 scants of Kail, purchased by accused Dhanna Ram from Sita Ram (PW-24). Permit, copy Ex. PW-12/A-1 (also Ex. PW-50/A-1), bearing No. 41/81-82, was issued. The permit was valid upto 30th December, 1981. Though against the aforesaid permit only 118 scants, having volume of 437.97 cft., were permitted to be exported, in fact 162 scants were exported and, thus, there was excess export of 44 scants.
Matter, after being reported to the Enforcement Department of the State, was investigated. Investigating revealed that there was a conspiracy among Dhanna Ram, partner of M/s Sita Ram Dhanna Ram, and three forest officials, namely accused Sant Ram, Forest Guard at Check Post Chambi; accused Prem Singh, Forest Guard at Check Post Dhalli; and accused Ved Prakash, Deputy Range Officer, Incharge Check Post Dhalli, to export more timber against permit No. 41/81-82, than permitted to be exported and in the said conspiracy, lateron, accused Nathu Singh, Station Master, Railway Station Shoghi, accused Leela Dutt, Loading Agent at Railway Station Shoghi and accused Ramesh Kumar, a Timber Merchant of Shimla, also joined.
Various documents, relating to the export of timber, including entries in the Registers, maintained at Check Posts Chambi and Dhalli, through which timber was required to be routed, were seized. Specimen signatures/ writings of forest officials, above named, who are accused in this case, were taken. Their admitted signatures/ writings were also seized. The same were sent to the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents, for comparison with their purported signatures/writings on various documents, including entries in the Registers. Handwriting Expert, namely PW-42 Shri Mohinder Singh, opined that signatures on two Ravanas Ex. PW-12/A-2 (also Ex. PW-42/A-1) and Ex. PW-20/B were of Forest Guard Sant Ram, one of the accused, and the entries in Register Ex. PW-20/A, maintained at Check Post Dhalli, were in the hand of accused Ved Prakash. Handwriting Expert also opined that Ravana Ex. PW-20/B, pertaining to export of 91 scants, bore signature of accused Prem Singh, Forest Guard, who was posted at Check Post Dhalli those days.
On completion of investigation, sanction to prosecute those of the accused, who are Government servants, was applied for and on such sanction being accorded, report, u/s 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was prepared and filed in the Court of Special Judge. Copies of report, u/s 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, alongwith relevant papers, were supplied to all the accused, by the trial Court. Thereafter, trial Court went through the record and heard learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Counsel for the accused and charged the accused as follows: Accused Dhanna Ram Sections 379, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, and Sections 41 & 42 of the Indian Forest Act, read with Rules 11 & 18 of the H.P. Forest Produce Transit (Land Routes) Rules, 1978. Accused Sant Ram, Prem Singh and Ved Prakash Sections 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and Rules 11 & 18 of the H.P. Forest Produce Transit (Land Routes) Rules, 1978.
Accused Ramesh Kumar Sections 420 & 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, and Rules 11 & 18 of the H.P. Forest Produce Transit (Land Routes) Rules, 1978.
Accused Leela Dutt Sections 218, 420, 468, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Rules 11, 18 & 20 of the H.P. Forest Produce Transit (Land Routes) Rules, 1978.
Nathu Singh Sections 420, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and Rules 11, 18 & 20 of the H.P. Forest Produce Transit (Land Routes) Rules, 1978.
To bring the charge home to the accused, prosecution examined 59 witnesses and also relied upon various documents and entries in the record maintained at Dhalli and Chambi Check Posts. Accused denied that there was any conspiracy or that any criminal act had been committed, in pursuance of the alleged conspiracy or even independent of such conspiracy.
Learned trial Court convicted accused Sant Ram, Prem Singh, Ved Prakash and Nathu Singh of offences, under Sections 120-B, 420, 218, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, Rule 20 of the H.P. Forest Produce Transit (Land Routes) Rules, 1978 and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and passed varying sentences of imprisonment and fine, for the aforesaid offences. Accused Leela Dutt was also convicted of all the aforesaid offences, except offence, u/s 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Other two accused, namely Dhanna Ram and Ramesh Kumar, were, however, acquitted.
State has challenged the acquittal of accused Dhanna Ram and Ramesh Kumar, by filing Criminal 13. We have heard learned Assistant Advocate General, appearing for the State, as also learned Counsel for convicted accused-Appellants as also acquitted accused, who are arrayed as Respondents in the State appeal.
First, we take up the State appeal, against the acquittal of accused Dhanna Ram and Ramesh Kumar. Prosecution case is that permit Ex. PW-12/A-1 (also Ex. PW-50/A-1) was issued in favour of Dhanna Ram and, therefore, he cannot escape liability, for excess export of timber against the said permit. The permit is in favour of a firm, by the name and style of M/s Sita Ram Dhanna Ram. Learned trial Court has held that since the permit is not in the name of accused Dhanna Ram, but in the name of M/s Sita Ram Dhanna Ram, accused-Respondent Dhanna Ram does not stand connected with the matter.
View taken by the learned trial Court is not correct. It is proved on record that Sita Ram (PW-24) had submitted application, Ex. PW-1/A, seeking permission to fell trees, standing on his Nautor land. Nine trees were felled, after permission was granted. Those trees yielded 118 scants. Those scants were sold by Sita Ram (PW-24) to accused Dhanna Ram. The fact is not denied by accused Dhanna Ram, in his examination, u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accused Dhanna Ram moved application Ex. PW-17/A, seeking permission to export the timber, which he had purchased from PW-24 Sita Ram. It was on the basis of this application that permit was granted, for export of timber, in favour of M/s Sita Ram Dhanna Ram. Property mark and Khudan mark, which the timber, permitted to be exported, was to bear, were also of accused Dhanna Ram. Property mark was D.R.S.R, while Khudan mark was H.E. The aforesaid property mark and Khudan mark were allotted to accused Dhanna Ram against his application Ex. PW-14/A-1. So, it cannot be said that accused Dhanna Ram had nothing to do with the export of timber or permit Ex. PW-12/A-1 (also Ex. PW-50/A-1) did not stand linked with him.
As would be seen from the discussion following hereinafter, it stands established, beyond reasonable doubt, that excess timber was exported against permit Ex. PW-12/A-1 (also Ex. PW-50/A-1) and forest officials, namely Forest Guard Sant Ram, Forest Guard Prem Singh and Deputy Range Officer Ved Prakash, connived with the permit holder to export more timber than permitted to be exported. So, accused Dhanna Ram, being the holder of export permit, cannot escape criminal liability, for excess export of timber against the aforesaid permit.
As regards the second acquitted accused, namely Ramesh Kumar, we find no connecting evidence. The allegation against him is that it was he who had received the payment of excess timber, exported through Railways. Allegation is that he received payment of 83 scants. 118 scants were permitted to be exported. He is alleged to have received payment of only 83 scants, which number is within the permitted numerical quantity mentioned in the permit. There is no evidence that 83 scants, of which he allegedly received payment, included price of 44 scants, which were exported, in excess of the quantity mentioned in the permit. So, we are of the considered view that his acquittal calls for no interference. Otherwise also, it is not proved if he received any payment, on account of any part of the quantity of timber exported against the aforesaid permit.
Now, coming to the appeal of convicted accused, allegation of the prosecution is that excess quantity of timber was exported, as a result of criminal conspiracy. There are two Ravanas Ex. PW-12/A-2 (also Ex. PW-42/A-1) and Ex. PW-20/B, against which two consignments of timber, pertaining to the export permit, in question, crossed Chambi and Dhalli Check Posts. Against Ravana Ex. PW-12/A-2 (also Ex. PW-42/A-1), 71 scants were exported. Entry was made in the Register at Check Post Chambi. Copy of the relevant entry is Ex. PW42/A-2.
Accused-Appellant Sant Ram was posted as Forest Guard at Forest Check Post Chambi, at the relevant time. He admits having made entry Ex. PW-42/A-2 in the relevant Register, regarding 71 scants, carried against Ravana Ex. PW-12/A-2 (also Ex. PW-42/A-1). Second Ravana Ex. PW-20/B, for 91 scants, bears the signature of this accused Sant Ram as Forest Guard. His signature is Q-12 and it is opined to be written by the same person, who wrote specimen signatures Marked S-11 to S-13, on Ex. PW-42/A-10 to Ex. PW-42/A-12. Shri Deva Singh Negi (PW-56), an Executive Magistrate, has proved these specimen signatures to be of accused-Appellant Sant Ram. There is no reason to disbelieve his testimony, especially when no suggestion was thrown to him that the aforesaid specimen signatures are not of Sant Ram.
Both the Ravanas were produced by PW-50 Daya Ram, Deputy Range Officer, from the records of Check Post Dhalli, during the investigation. Now, entry in the Register, maintained at Check Post Chambi, copy Ex. PW-42/A-2, which is admitted by accused-Appellant Sant Ram to be in his hand and the fact that Ravana Ex. 20/B is signed by accused Sant Ram, proves that he was aware of the transportation of both the consignments against the permit, in question. In both the Ravanas, number of permit and the name of the permit holder are the same, as mentioned in the permit, in question, i.e. Ex. PW-12/A-1 (also Ex. PW-50/A-1). Accused-Appellant Sant Ram did not make the entry of second Ravana Ex. PW-20/B, against which 91 scants were transported, in the Register at Check Post Chambi. Explanation offered by him is that he might not have been shown the concerned Ravana. His explanation is belied by the fact that Ravana Ex. PW-20/B bears his signatures, as aforesaid.
Both the consignments crossed Forest Check Post Dhalli also. Entries of both the consignments are there in the Register maintained at the said Check Post. Register is Ex. PW-20/A. Relevant entries are at machine-printed Page No. 45. Entries are proved to be in the hand of Ved Prakash, Deputy Range Officer. Handwriting Expert, PW-42 Shri Mohinder Singh has proved that the first entry, regarding transportation of 71 scants, has been tampered with by overwriting, so as to reduce the number of scants to 21, so that the total number of scants of both the consignments, comes down to a number not exceeding 118, which number of scants was permitted to be exported. Portion of entry regarding volume has also been tampered with. Entries are proved to be in the hand of accused Ved Prakash, by PW-20 Shri Budhi Ram, as also by the Handwriting Expert PW-42 Shri Mohinder Singh, who compared the same with the specimen writings of accused Ved Prakash. Thus, involvement of accused Ved Prakash, Deputy Range Officer, Incharge of Forest Check Post Dhalli, is also proved, beyond reasonable doubt.
As regards accused Prem Singh, Forest Guard of Check Post Dhalli, he admits that he allowed export of timber against Ravana Ex. PW-20/B and appended his signature thereon, but his explanation is that the Ravana does not pertain to the permit, in question, i.e. permit No. 41/81-82. This explanation of accused-Appellant Prem Singh is not correct. Ex. PW-20/B is carbon copy of Ravana. Of course, writing on this Ravana is very dim, but we have been able to read, beyond any pale of doubt, permit number on this Ravana, which is 41/81-82 and the name of the holder of the permit is also Dhanna Ram (written in Block letters) Sita Ram. Not only this, we find a mention of this Ravana in Register Ex. PW-20/A, maintained at Check Post Dhalli. This entry is on the Ledger folio pertaining to permit No. 41/81-82. Accused-Appellant Prem Singh, Forest Guard, was supposed to have looked into the earlier entry, regarding crossing of 71 scants, in Register Ex. PW-20/A, pertaining to permit No. 41/81-82, before allowing the Truck, carrying consignment of 91 scants, against Ravana Ex. PW-20/B, to cross the Check Post. It may be stated that on the top of Ledger folio number of permit, name of holder of permit and the quantity of timber, both in terms of number of scants as also volume, is mentioned. Thus, involvement of Prem Singh, in excess transport of timber, also stands proved, beyond reasonable doubt.
As regards the other two Appellants/convicts, namely Nathu Singh and Leela Dutt, allegation against them is that they facilitated 83 scants to be transported by Railways against the permit, in question, after the expiry of the permit. Timber was loaded in Railway wagon on 6.1.1982, per Railway Receipt Ex. PW-42/A-4. Corresponding forwarding note Ex. PW-42/A-5 though also bears the same date, i.e. 6.1.1982, yet from a bare look at the forwarding note, it is clear that this date is in a different ink and hand and, therefore, possibility of this date having been written subsequently, to connect it with Railway Receipt Ex. PW-42/A-4 cannot be ruled out. This forwarding note was also sent to the Handwriting Expert for comparing its writing with specimen writings of the accused persons. The Handwriting Expert enclosed the handwritten material in red pencil and marked the same Q-14. Date 6.1.1982 on this forwarding note is outside the red pencil circle around writing Mark Q-14. This circumstance indicates that the date was not there on the forwarding note, when it was sent to the Handwriting Expert for his opinion, during the investigation of the case.
Normally, when timber or other goods, in large quantity, are required to be transported by Railways, from smaller Stations, like Shoghi or even Shimla, wagons are not immediately available. Timber or goods are delivered at the Railway Station. Then entry is made in the priority Register. Wagons are requisitioned from Regional Office at Ambala. It takes a good number of days for the wagons to be arranged and sent to the requisitioning Railway Station. It is then that the timber or the goods are loaded. This kind of practice is testified 25. K.C. Nandwani, an Inspector of Railways, who investigated the case, on behalf of the Railways, while looking into the alleged involvement of accused-Appellant Nathu Singh. So, we are of the view that involvement of accused-Appellant Nathu Singh, Station Master and Leela Dutt, Loading Agent of Railways, does not stand established, beyond reasonable doubt.
The aforesaid proved acts of accused Dhanna Ram, accused-Appellants Sant Ram, Prem Singh and Ved Prakash clearly indicate that there was a criminal conspiracy amongst them and in pursuance of that conspiracy entries in Register Ex. PW-20/A were altered and 44 scants of timber were exported, in excess of the number of scants permitted to be exported, against permit Ex. PW-12/A-1 (also Ex. PW-50/A-1). Thus, all of them are guilty of offences, u/s 120-B read with Section 465 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and Rule 20 of the H.P. Forest Produce Transit (Land Routes) Rules, 1978, read with Section 42 of the Indian Forest Act. Accused-Appellants Sant Ram, Prem Singh and Ved Prakash are also held guilty of offence, u/s 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Accused-Appellant Ved Prakash is further held to be guilty of offence of forgery, punishable u/s 465 of the Indian Penal Code. As a matter of fact, the act of forgery amounts to an offence, punishable u/s 466 of the Indian Penal Code, but the charge of forgery being not under that provision, but only u/s 465 of the Indian Penal Code, we are confining the conviction of accused-Appellant Ved Prakash, u/s 465 of the Indian Penal Code, instead of Section 466 of the Indian Penal Code.
As a result of the above discussion, Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 2001, so far as it concerns Nathu Singh and Leela Dutt, is accepted in its entirety and conviction and sentences of both these Appellants, for all the offences, are set aside and they are acquitted. As regards the remaining three accused-Appellants, in this appeal, their conviction for all other offences, except under Sections 120-B, read with Section 465 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and Rule 20 of the H.P. Forest Produce Transit (Land Routes) Rules, 1978, read with Section 42 of the Indian Forest Act, is set aside. Their sentences for offence, u/s 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, i.e. rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of three months, for offence, u/s 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, i.e. one year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine simple imprisonment for three months, and for offence, under Rule 20 of the H.P. Forest Produce Transit (Land Routes) Rules, 1978, i.e. three months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/-, as awarded by the trial Court, are maintained. However, the sentence of simple imprisonment, in respect of offence, under Rule 20 of the H.P. Forest Produce Transit (Land Routes) Rules, 1978, in default of payment of fine, is reduced from three months to 15 days. Accused-Appellant Ved Prakash is further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, u/s 465 of the Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of three months.
Sentences of substantive imprisonment, as aforesaid, shall run concurrently.
Appeal filed by the State, i.e. Criminal Appeal No. 205 of 2001, against the acquittal of accused Dhanna Ram and Ramesh Kumar, is partly accepted, as aforesaid.
Accused Dhanna Ram, who has been convicted, after setting aside the judgment of acquittal, passed by the learned Special Judge, be produced on 17th May, 2011, for being heard on the quantum of sentence.