State of Himachal Pradesh vs Ram Krishan

Deepak Gupta, Judge

This appeal by the State has been preferred against the judgment dated 28.12.2004, delivered by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Anni, District Kullu, whereby he acquitted the accused of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 41, 42 of the Indian Forests Act read with Section 467, 468, 471 and 420 IPC. The prosecution story in brief is that in the year 1995, the respondent-accused was serving as P.T.I. in Government Senior Secondary School, Dalash. The School Building Construction Committee which was headed by the Principal of the school comprised of other members of the staff of the Senior Secondary School, Dalash including parents of the students had started construction of the 3rd story of the school. For this purpose, the accused was authorized by the said committee to purchase the timber. The case set up by the prosecution is that instead of purchasing the timber, the respondent-accused applied to the Range Officer, Chawai seeking permission to fell one deodar tree on his land. The respondent-accused sought permission to fell the tree on the ground that he wants to donate the timber for construction of the school building. The prosecution story is that instead of cutting one tree, respondent-accused cut two trees and converted them into timber and sent it to the school. He, however, raised forged and false bills of Rupees 32,300/- and Rupees 12,926/- from M/s Nardeep Timber Contractor and Labour Suppliers, Larankelo, Tehsil Manali, District Kullu. He also showed various expenses for transportation of timber, watch and ward etc. and thus claimed a total amount of Rupees 60,000/-from the committee vide memo Ext. PW13/A. The prosecution case, in a nut-shell, is that the accused did not purchase any timber from PW-25, Proprietor of M/s Nardeep Timber Contractor and Labour Suppliers, Larankelo and also did not transport any timber, but, in fact, cut two trees in his own land and falsely claimed an amount of Rupees 60,000/- as the cost of timber, transportation, watch and ward and other miscellaneous expenses.

The complaint was filed by Nika Ram, who was then posted as Range Officer, Nither Range vide Ext.PW6/A to the Station House Officer, Police Station, Anni that the case be registered against the Principal of Government Senior Secondary School, Dalash for illegal timber trade. In this criminal complaint, it was averred that on 15.5.1995 while conducting the checking of the premises of the school, 42 karis of deodar and 47 strusses of deodar were found in the school premises and these did not bear any hammer mark. The timber without hammer mark was seized and then handed over to Shri S.K. Kaushal. According to the complainant, this timber was handed over to Shri S.K. Kaushal, Junior Engineer, HPPWD by the Principal of the school. It was further averred that fresh hammer mark was affixed on the timber in the presence of Shri Hem Raj, Pradhan of Gram Panchayat Dalash, Shri Vijay Singh, Lecturer of G.S.S.S., Dalash and Shri S.K. Kaushal, J.E., HPPWD, Dalash. On registration of the FIR, the investigation was carried out and finally the accused was charged for having committed the offences aforesaid. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. After trial, he was acquitted. Hence, this appeal by the State.

To prove its case, it was incumbent upon the prosecution to prove that the accused had not purchased any timber from M/s Nardeep Timber Contractor and Labour Suppliers, Larankelo and had not transported the same to the school. One of the most important witness in this behalf is PW-25 Shri Ashok Kumar, who was the proprietor of Nardeep Timber Contractor and Labour Suppliers, Larankelo. According to this witness, he had supplied timber to the accused and issued cash memo in the name of Principal of Government Senior Secondary School, Dalash.

The case of the prosecution further is that the timber was not purchased and transported. The driver of the truck was examined as PW-16. He also did not support the prosecution case. According to him, he accompanied the accused in the truck to Larankelo where the accused purchased timber from M/s Nardeep Timber Contractor and Labour Suppliers and this timber was transported to the school at Dalash. This knocks out the very basis of the prosecution story.

Furthermore, there is no material on record to show that it was the accused who had handed over the timber to Shri S.K. Kaushal, Junior Engineer in Public Works Department. Even according to the prosecution, the timber was handed over to Shri S.K. Kaushal by the Principal of the school. The Principal was examined as PW-28. He has only stated that the respondent-accused was the in-charge of the construction committee, but has not made any specific reference to the timber being handed over by him.

Even the witnesses at the time of the seizure, especially the Pradhan Hem Raj, who was examined as PW-5, have not supported the prosecution version that there was no hammer mark when the timber was seized. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case. We, therefore, find no merit in the appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds discharged.