JUDGMENT D. P. Sood, J.—Order of acquittal dated January 31, 1991, passed in Criminal Case No. 17/3/89 Re 2 Forest Department v. Joginder Singh, respondent in the instant appeal, has been assailed by the State of Himachal Pradesh through this appeal. 2. Prosecution case in nut-shell is that on 1-5-1988 in D. P. F. Compartment No. 8 Narain, (PW 1) Forest Guard Daulat Ram, while on patrol duty, found that respondent bad encroached upon the land contained in Khasra No. 95/1/1, measuring 0.24.70 hectares. He prepared the damage report Ex. PA but did not fill in the iqubalnama at the material time. 3. The prosecution case is that on enquiry respondent claimed the same to be his private land and thereafter on the askance of PW-1 respondent refused to append his signatures on iqubalnama. subsequently on 9-6-1988, PW-1, alongwith Bhagat Chand Patwari (PW 2) visited the spot and the latter prepared the tatima Ex. PW 2/A and his report is Ex. PW-2/C wherein he reported that accused had illicitly encroached upon the area referred to above. Later on 30-7-1988 Keshva Ram Kanungo (PW-3) verified Tatima Ex. PW-2/A and he also gave his report on point A on the said document. Ultimately the respondent was prosecuted on the complaint having been filed by the Forest Department through PW-1 in the trial Court. 4. The substance of accusation was put to him to which respondent pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In his statement under section 313, Cr. P. C. he raised a defence of denial simpliciter. 5. The trial Court on appraisal of the evidence acquitted the accused by taking into consideration the following circumstances :— (i) that the encroached area had not properly been demarcated by the revenue official. Rather they acted upon the statements made by the Forest Officials who were present at the time of demarcation; (ii) that the statements of PWs 2 and 4 are contradictory to each other inasmuch PW-2 in his report Ex. PW-2/C states the existence of potato cultivation on the encroached land whereas PW-4 Durga Singh Block Officer deposes that there was no such cultivation at all and report Ex. PW-2/C given by halqa patwari is absolutely wrong ; and lastly (iii) that the sequence of events stated by prosecution witnesses, show that PW-1 never met the accused and false case has been foisted against him. 6. PW-2/C given by halqa patwari is absolutely wrong ; and lastly (iii) that the sequence of events stated by prosecution witnesses, show that PW-1 never met the accused and false case has been foisted against him. 6. I have heard learned Assistant Advocate General at length. He has also read the statements of prosecution witnesses from his record in support of his arguments According to him the case involves the encroachment of land whereupon 19 deodar trees of different classifications were standing and which have been wiped out by the respondent. It has been pointed out that demarcation is a legal and valid and the lower Court has erroneously brushed aside the evidence adduced by the appellant. 7. Be that as It may, the testimony of PW-3 Keshav Ram, Kanungo, shows that only Forest Officials were present at the time of demarcation. Assuming that the said demarcation was properly done by him at the material time while verifying the tatima Ex. PW-2/A, but no notice to the accused at the material time has at all be served nor he was present at the relevant time, In that view of the matter, the demarcation has not been done properly according to the instructions issued by the Financial Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh. A very basic foundation in view of it is wiped out. I need not discuss the other evidence resulting into the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court. To my mind the Court below has rightly considered the evidence in recording the impugned order of acquittal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed. 8. At this stage, it would be proper to observe that the Government instead of having recourse of filing the instant appeal should have proceeded for eviction of the respondent in accordance with law in case it is found that the said land has actually been encroached upon by the respondent. The Forest Department apart from registering the criminal case should have also taken legal steps in that behalf as well. It appears that by prosecuting the offender they want to seek orders of the Court simply with a view to ward off their own responsibility. The Forest Department apart from registering the criminal case should have also taken legal steps in that behalf as well. It appears that by prosecuting the offender they want to seek orders of the Court simply with a view to ward off their own responsibility. In fact principle of accountability applies to all officials concerned and in that view of the matter this aspect should also be taken into consideration by the higher authorities as to why the concerned officials have defaulted in not having discharged their duties properly particularly in the instant case. The appeal stands disposed of in terms of the above. Order accordingly.