JUDGMENT Bhawani Singh, J—This appeal has been filed against the judgment of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hamirpur, in case No. 2 of 1983. The trying Magistrate has acquitted the accused under sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. The State feels aggrieved by this judgment and, therefore, assails it by this appeal. 2. The case against the accused, in brief, is that on 23-2-1983 Shri J. K. Mahajan, Forest Ranger (P.W. 2), accompanied by Shri Prem Nath, Deputy Ranger (P.W.I) and two Forest Guards, Shri Harnam Singh (P.W. 3) and Shri Chuni Lal (P.W. 4), while driving in a departmental jeep, found some persons loading forest produce (khair wood) in truck No. HIM 3611. Sighting these forest officials, these persons ran away. The driver of the truck also sped away the truck towards Satin name of a place. After sometime, the truck was intercepted while unloading the timber and the forest officials took into possession 90 logs of khair wood. 3. It was found that the timber belonged to the accused and it was he who was solely responsible for the same. The accused is stated to be a contractor of katha with his katha bhathi at Satin. 4. The damage report Ex. PA was prepared by Shri Chuni Lal (P.W. 4) and the accused appended his signature thereto, after confessing his guilt. The truck was impounded and was released on realisation of a sum of Rs. 5000 from the driver of the truck. There was no export permit to carry the timber. Thus, the action of the accused was in violation of Rule 11 of the Himachal Pradesh Forest Produce Transit (Land Routes) Rules, 1978 and section 41 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and punishable under section 42 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 read with Rule 20. 5. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Defence evidence was also led by him. 6. Shri M.S. Guleria, learned Assistant Advocate General appearing for the State, assails the judgment of the trial court and submits that in view of the overwhelming evidence to connect the accused with the com mission of the offence, the judgment is perverse and deserves to be set aside. He further submits that the inferences drawn by the trial court for acquitting the accused are thoroughly superficial and without any basis. 7. He further submits that the inferences drawn by the trial court for acquitting the accused are thoroughly superficial and without any basis. 7. Perusal of the statements of a number of witnesses of the prosecution clearly show that the accused was a katha contractor. He had a katha bhathi at Satin. The truck transporting the timber was ultimately caught at Satin where the timber was being unloaded. The presence of the accused has been stated specifically by Prem Nath, Deputy Ranger (P.W. 1) and Shri Chuni Lal, Forester (P.W. 4). The testimony of these witnesses on this aspect of the matter has not been shattered even during their cross- examination. Further, the presence of the accused is evidenced from the statement of Shri Jai Kumar Mahajan, Range Officer (P.W. 2) and Harnam Singh, Forest Guard (PW 3) Shri Jai Kumar Mahajan, Range Officer (PW 2) states that on inquiry at the spot, the contractor (accused) admitted having out the trees. Shri Harnam Singh, Forest Guard (P.W. 3), also says that the accused bad also come to Harairpur when they had brought the truck to that place. In addition to this, it is further clear that the damage report Ex. PA, prepared by Shri Cbuni Lal (P W. 4) was duly signed by the accused. The findings of the trial court to the contrary are patently erroneous. 8. Shri K. C. Rana, learned counsel for the accused, submits that the accused is neither connected with the commission of the offence nor the damage report is in order. He further submits that there are contradictions in the statements of various witnesses. He also submits that the trees were cut actually by the owners in their own lands. I am not at all impressed by these submissions of the learned counsel for the accused. The perusal of the statements, as discussed above, clearly connect the accused with the commission of the offence. Further, the damage report, Ex. PA, dated 23-2-1983, has been duly signed by the accused. The argument that certain blank spaces have been filled up is not of any consequence. The accused has duly signed it. He is a katha contractor and owner of a katha bhathi where only this kind of timber is used for the extraction of katha to be sold ultimately in the market. The argument that certain blank spaces have been filled up is not of any consequence. The accused has duly signed it. He is a katha contractor and owner of a katha bhathi where only this kind of timber is used for the extraction of katha to be sold ultimately in the market. Such a person cannot be reasonably expected to be misguided or coerced to sign this document nor a specific convincing plea has been raised by the accused on this aspect. This form has been prescribed by the Forest Department and is used in such like cases and in such like circumstances. No fault can be, therefore, found with Ex. PA and not only the analysis but also the conclusions and reasonings of the trial court of the same are perverse. Hence, all the submissions on this aspect are rejected. 9. Equally unimpressive is the submission that there are contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses. I find no material contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses. There may be certain minor contradictions here and there but they do not in any way weaken the case of the prosecution. 10. The last submission of Shri K. C. Rana is also of no consequence. The trees may have once belonged to the right holders but the offence was ultimately committed by the accused after having purchased the same from the right holders. He became the owner of the timber and the accused could not transport the same without proper sanction. Having failed to do so, he has committed violation of the provisions already referred to above. 11. The defence witnesses show that the accused wants to relieve himself of the case against him and cast the same on another person Prakash Chand. I am not at all convinced by his explanation and the defence evidence. Their statements cannot at all be believed, they are interested to some one. No other point was argued by the learned counsel for the accused. 12. In view of the discussion as above and the perusal of the record of the case, I am convinced that the prosecution has succeeded in proving the guilt against the accused. In view of this, the judgment of the trial court is set-aside. No other point was argued by the learned counsel for the accused. 12. In view of the discussion as above and the perusal of the record of the case, I am convinced that the prosecution has succeeded in proving the guilt against the accused. In view of this, the judgment of the trial court is set-aside. The accused is convicted under Rule 11 of the Himachal Pradesh Forest Produce Transit (Land Routes) Rules, 1978, enacted under section 41 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (XVI of 1927) and liable to be punished under Rule 20 of the said Rules read with section 42 of the Indian Forest Act. 13. On the point of sentence, Shri M. S. Guleria, learned Assistant Advocate General, vehemently argued that perusal of Ex. PC shows that the accused deserves maximum punishment. He further argued that illicit felling of forest trees by unscrupulous persons has increased to alarming proportions thereby not only threatening the whole ecological system but also causing loss to the State. He submits that in order to make such like people understand that cutting of forests illicitly is not a profitable act, it is fundamental that the penalty must be such which prevents future resort to such activities by such persons. Making a reference to the fact that the trees were owned by the right holders, he submits that even the right holders would be reluctant to cut their trees of their ownership lands if they do not find a buyer for their produce. 14. I am in entire agreement with these submissions of the learned Assistant Advocate General. However, in the absence of any evidence of previous conviction, I am of the opinion that punishment of fine would meet the ends of justice. I, therefore, impose a fine of Rs. 500 on the accused and in default of the payment thereof, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. The timber seized/recovered is confiscated to the State. Appeal allowed. -