JUDGMENT Bhawani Singh, J.—The present appeal is against the order of acquittal passed by Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Theog, in case No, 12/1 of 1983 decided on 31-12-1985 ; F. I. R. No. 138/82, P. S. Theog, under sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act read with section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The facts, in brief, are that on 9-6-1982, Forest officials headed by Shri R. K. Sharma, Range Officer, found 230 scants of Deodar and Kail stacked at Narail. These scants bore the property mark BSC which was allotted and registered in the name of the accused. These scants were seized and handed over on sapurdari to the accused. The case was investigated and it was found that the timber actually belonged to the accused who had transported the same from Bharana Beat where his private sale work was going on. 3. Further, on information, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Shri Devinder Dutt, got secret information that the accused had transported some timber out of the scants in question through truck No. HPS-4207 owned by one Shri Amar Singh during the night of 24/25-8-1982. It was also found that out of the total timber, 146 scants were found missing from the place at Narail which were in the Sapurdari of the accused. The timber was transported through Yaswant Nagar Check-Post. On completion of investigation, a challan under sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act and under section 406 of the Indian Penal Code was filed which ended in the acquittal of the accused under all the sections. 4. It was found by the trial Magistrate that the timber was given to the accused on Sapurdari although the accused had transported the same. The Court further held that the allegation of the prosecution relating to the transport of 146 scants of timber through truck No,HPS-4207 via. Yaswant Nagar Check-Post was not proved as neither the truck in question was used nor there was any such entry at Check-Post Yaswant Nagar. The Court, therefore, concluded that the offences against the accused were not proved and Shri Basant Singh accused was, therefore, acquitted of the charges. 5. Yaswant Nagar Check-Post was not proved as neither the truck in question was used nor there was any such entry at Check-Post Yaswant Nagar. The Court, therefore, concluded that the offences against the accused were not proved and Shri Basant Singh accused was, therefore, acquitted of the charges. 5. Regarding the disposal of the property, the Court held that the timber numbering 230 scants seized at Narail, subject-matter of the case, was bearing property mark BSC of the accused and the same was extracted by him from trees in Bharana Beat which the accused had purchased from private owners and no illicit felling was found to have been done by him. It was further concluded that the accused had felled these trees by obtaining proper permission from the Forest Department; so it was duly proved that the remaining 126 scants in the sapurdari of the accused belonged to him and they were ordered to be returned to the accused. 6. I have examined the judgment of the trying Magistrate threadbare and I am of the opinion that the above said conclusions of the trying Magistrate are in accordance with the evidence on record. 7. Shri M. S. Guleria, learned Assistant Advocate General, submitted that the conclusions of the trying Magistrate deserve to be set aside. I do not agree with the submissions of the learned Counsel for the State. Besides what has been discussed and decided by the trial Judge, I see one more fact worth noticeable brought to my notice by Shri T. R. Chandel, learned Counsel appearing for the accused. It is a copy of the judgment in Case No. 14/3 of 1983 decided on 14-9-1984 (State v. Basant Singh) under sections 33/41/42 of the Indian Forest Act in F. I. R. No 86 of 82. This case is also against the accused in the present case and relating to this very timber. The aspect of the matter, dealt with in this case, is cutting of the trees by the accused and stacking of the same at Narail on H. T. Road having property mark BSC of the accused. In this judgment it is found by the trial Judge that this timber belonged to Basant Singh and was the same which had been given on sapurdari to the present accused. This timber was covered by valid export permit Ex. In this judgment it is found by the trial Judge that this timber belonged to Basant Singh and was the same which had been given on sapurdari to the present accused. This timber was covered by valid export permit Ex. DW 2/A issued by the Divisional Forest Officer in favour of the accused on 15-5-1982 for export of 708 scants of Deodar, Kail and Chil from Dibba-Dharampur to Simla and outside of Himachal Pradesh via. Dhalli and the said permit was to expire on 27-5-1982. 8. The timber, before export, was to be given export hammer mark by the Block Officer. The court did not feel convinced as to the requirement of export hammer before issue of export permit with the result that the accused was acquitted by giving him benefit of doubt. The net result of this judgment is that the timber in question was felled by the accused after seeking permission from the Forest Department; the same was lying at Narail for export. It was this timber qua which F. I. R. relating to the present case (F. I. R. No. 138 of 1982) was registered on the allegation that the accused committed an offence under sections 41/42 of the Indian Forest Act and under section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. The conclusion, therefore, is irresistible that the timber in question is the same although two different cases were initiated qua the same against accused Basant Singh. 9. I do not see any basis or reason to accept the submission of Shri M. S. Guleria, learned Assistant Advocate General, that the accused has committed an offence under section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. Vide judgment in case No, 14/3 of 1983 decided on 14-9-1984, he has been acquitted relating to this timber which has been found to be his own. Therefore, in this case the trial Judge rightly rejected the case of the prosecution and ordered the release of the property in his favour. The property being his own, as already held by the trial Court in another case referred to above, no offence under section 406 of the Indian Penal Code was committed by the accused. 10. In view of the discussion made above, I see no merit in the appeal. The same is accordingly dismissed. The property being his own, as already held by the trial Court in another case referred to above, no offence under section 406 of the Indian Penal Code was committed by the accused. 10. In view of the discussion made above, I see no merit in the appeal. The same is accordingly dismissed. The personal bond and the surety bond, if any, executed by the accused at any stage of the case are hereby cancelled. Appeal dismissed.-