JUDGMENT Bhawani Singh, J.—This appeal by the State of Himachal Pradesh arises out of the judgment of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Palampur, in Criminal Case No. 33-111/1987 whereby the accused was acquitted of the charge under sections 32/33 and 41/42 of the Indian Forest Act vide decision dated 15-10-1988. The State challenges this decision by this appeal. 2. The facts, in brief, are that during the period February, 1987 to April, 1987, the accused illegally felled 226 Khair trees from the private as , well as Shamlat land without any valid permit The matter was investigated and the present case was initiated against the accused which has resulted in the aforesaid acquittal of the accused. 3. Shri M. S. Guleria, learned Assistant Advocate General, submits that the accused felled 226 Khair trees illegally from the reserved forest and despite evidence on the record, the accused has been unjustifiably acquitted by the trial court. It is a serious matter, he urges, that the accused resorted to large scale illicit felling of Khair trees—226 trees in this case and hundreds of other trees in other cases pending against the accused. 4. In order to examine these arguments of the learned Counsel for the State, it is necessary to look into the evidence brought on the record of this case. 5. Shri Tilak Chand (PW I), Shri Shankar Ram (PW 2), Shri Sher Singh (PW 3), Shri Abhinash Chand (PW 4); Shri Kushal Singh (PW 6) and Smt. Reshan Devi (PW 8) have not only denied having sold any Khair trees to the accused but also giving of any statement to the police. These people are those who are alleged to have sold the trees to the accused. Only one witness left is Shri Uttam Chand (PW 5). This witness admits having sold seven trees to the accused. He states that the labour of the accused came, out the trees and took them away. He further states that the rest of the villagers of his village also sold khair trees. 6. Shri Jai Chand Katoch (PW 9) is the Range Officer. He states that the accused was allowed cutting of certain trees but in addition to this, the accused cut 825 trees in various places. The accused cut 108 trees from the shamlat land also. 6. Shri Jai Chand Katoch (PW 9) is the Range Officer. He states that the accused was allowed cutting of certain trees but in addition to this, the accused cut 825 trees in various places. The accused cut 108 trees from the shamlat land also. He went on the spot and prepared the damage report alongwith the Assistant Conservator of Forests, Many other damage reports were also prepared. In this case, 226 trees are involved out of which 12 quintals of katha can be extracted. The accused had taken permission for carrying on katha bhathi also. The total number of trees sanctioned in favour of the accused during 1986-87 was 1144 but he could not say that the total katha out of it could come to 90 quintals. The illicit felling pertains to the area within which the accused was otherwise permitted to fell sanctioned trees. 7. Shri Amar Nath (PW 10) is the complainant in this case. It is he at whose instance the present case was registered, investigated and initiated in the court. He states that he came to know about this illicit felling from the labour, although he did not see it himself. He could not say with respect to which trees the accused had permission out of the total trees cut by him- He admits that the complaint Ex. PW 10/A was made by him at the instance of the labour. 8. Shri Dharam Singh (PW 11) is the Forest Guard. He states that the accused had cut trees illicitly and he prepared the damage reports Ex. PW 11/A to Ex. PW 11/E. He appears to have got the signatures of those on the damage reports who allegedly sold trees to the accused. He is supported on this aspect by Shri Ramesh Chand (PW 12), Forest Guard. 9. Shri P. C. Kaushal (PW 14) is the Assistant Conservator of Forests, Palampur. He also states that the accused had cut large number of trees—108 out of Shamlat land and 825 from the ownership land of the villagers. 10. The accused has led defence evidence also, besides his statement under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It appears from the statement of Shri Gian Chand (DW 1), Station House Officer, Baijnath, that there are other cases also pending investigation against the accused. 10. The accused has led defence evidence also, besides his statement under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It appears from the statement of Shri Gian Chand (DW 1), Station House Officer, Baijnath, that there are other cases also pending investigation against the accused. The accused states in his examination lender section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that he cut only those trees which were duly sanctioned in his favour. 11. Now, the question is whether the prosecution has been able to prove the case against the accused. The seller of trees from the private lands, except Shri Uttam Chand (PW 5), have turned hostile. They have not supported the prosecution version as to the sale of trees to the accused and the prosecution has not included them as accused in the case for having sold the trees without the permission of the Forest Department under the existing laws for the conservation of forest trees even on private lands. The version of Shri Uttam Chand (PW 5) is not very clear as to the direct involvement of the accused. However, his version is believable to the extent that the trees were cut by the labour which, after cutting, took away the same and that other villagers also sold trees, to whom, is not very clear. 12. The statements of the forest officials, although throws light as to the large scale illicit felling of trees, but it is not possible to conclude the direct involvement of the accused. Trees were owned by the private owners. They have been cut, it is clear, but by whom, there is no cogent and convincing evidence to the extent to prove criminal charge against the accused. Various damage reports, include the names of the sellers and the accused has not admitted the commission of the offence. However, it is clear that this cutting pertains to the areas out of which sanctioned trees were cut by the accused in the year 1986-87 in the months of March and April, during which period the labour of the accused cut the trees. 13. From the perusal of the record and the evidence on the file, it is difficult to conclude that the prosecution has been able to prove the offence against the accused. 14. The result is, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. 15. 13. From the perusal of the record and the evidence on the file, it is difficult to conclude that the prosecution has been able to prove the offence against the accused. 14. The result is, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. 15. Coming to the question of katha, in the light of the observations made above, the accused is not entitled to the same. It may be one thing that the prosecution has not been able to prove the substantive offence against the accused conclusively as the principal witnesses actually involved in the issue have turned hostile and did not support the prosecution version in toto, however, it is clear from the statement of Uttam Chand (PW 5) that the trees were cut by the labour. Obviously that of the accused because it was the labour of the accused which was working in this area during this period. There is statement of Amar Nath (PW 10), besides the version of the official witnesses. It is very clear that besides the permitted trees, rest of the trees were also cut by the labour and mixed up with other trees qua which the accused had the permission. It cannot, therefore, be said that the katha in question belongs to the accused. The katha involved in this case is, therefore, forfeited to the State Government. Order accordingly -