JUDGMENT D. P. Sood, J.—The sole question arising for determination of this Court is "whether a trial Court has misappreciated the evidence in recording the acquittal of the accused in the criminal case against him for the commission of the offence under section 41/42 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and under section 379/411 of the Indian Penal Code " At the material time, PW 8 Jeet Singh and PW 10 Prem Parkask Sethi were Inspector in Enforcement Department at Shimla, whereas S/Shri Narain Singh and Chancier Mani were the employees of the Forest Department Shri Jagat Ram, accused was a forest lesses of Shimla Forest Division dealing in timber business at that time, On a secret information, PW 8 in the presence of PWs 6, 9 and 10 conducted a raid at Railway Station, Shoghi on 2-6-1982 and found 205 scants of Kail Wood of different sizes lying in the yard of Railway Station. The said scants were bearing “C T." Khudan mark. However, no property mark or export mark was affixed on any one of them Enquiry revealed that the said Khudan mark had been allotted by the concerned Forest Division to the accused As the aforesaid timber was being exported in contravention of the Himachal Pradesh Forest Produce Transit (Land Routes) Rules, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as Rules) framed under sections 4i and 42 of the Indian Forest Act, the entire timber so found was seized on the spot through memo Ex. P-2 and given on sapurdari to PW 1 Shri Lila Dutt through memo Ex PA, Resultantly, Ruqqa Ex. PW 7/A was sent by PW 8 to the Police Station, Enforcement, Shimla for the registration of a criminal case against the accused, whereupon a formal First Information Report Ex. PW 7/B was recorded. On completion of investigation, the accused was prosecuted for the commission of the aforesaid offences which resulted in the frames of the charge against him. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 2. The explanation of the accused under section 313, Cr. PW 7/B was recorded. On completion of investigation, the accused was prosecuted for the commission of the aforesaid offences which resulted in the frames of the charge against him. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 2. The explanation of the accused under section 313, Cr. P. C. is that he was a forest lessee at the material time and had number of permits subsisting during the year, 1982 i that he transported the timber to Railway Station, Shoghi on the basis of permits issued by the officials of the Shimla Forest Division in accordance with the Rules and his timber so exported bore Khudan mark C. T. as also property mark C.T.B., referred to above. The accused disowned the seized timber and further stated that it was not transported by him to Shoghi Railway Station. 3. After recording the prosecution evidence and hearing the parties to the case, the trial Court recorded an order of acquittal Feeling aggrieved with the aforesaid order, the State has come up in this appeal 4. After going through the record of the instant case, I am of the opinion that the order of acquittal of the accused is absolutely justified. The prosecution has not been able to establish the link in between the seized timber and the accused nor there is any cogent and convincing evidence on record to show that the seized property had been transported by the accused to Shoghi Railway Station alongwith or under the guise of permits so issued to him by the Shimla Forest Division. In fact, the prosecution case suffers from various infirmities. 5. In the first instance, it is to be noted that raid was conducted on the basis of secret information The prosecution on finding the possessor of the Khudan mark as C T on the seized timber by name, should have associated him during further investigation The timber was lying in open place and the accused was not represented either personally or through some-one on his behalf. This fact gives rise to a material question, whether the timber can be connected with the accused ? The attempt of the prosecution to prove that the seized timber bore Khudan mark G T. thereupon and not the property mark C T. B as required under the Rules sufficiently connected the accused with the ownership of the timber, is not enough. The attempt of the prosecution to prove that the seized timber bore Khudan mark G T. thereupon and not the property mark C T. B as required under the Rules sufficiently connected the accused with the ownership of the timber, is not enough. The prosecution should have proved quite convincingly that this Khudan mark was only allotted to the accused and no other lessee in any other Forest Division PW 3 Ved Parkash, Deputy Ranger for the Forest Division at the material time, has categorically admitted in his cross-examination that one Khudan mark can be allotted to two different persons at the same time under two different Forest Divisions. There is no iota of evidence on record to show that no other person was in possession of the aforesaid Khudan mark at the material time. It seems, there was some dispute as to the allotment and use of Khudan mark to be used on each scant of the forest produce at the material time. Rule 5 of the Rules deals with the registration of property mark and its use. It reads as under : — "5. No person shall transport or cause to be transported any forest produce that does not bear the imprint of the registered mark." 6. Thereafter, relevant rule is Rule 6 which deals with the registration of property, relevant part of which is as under : "All persons willing to transport forest produce by land routes shall register at the office of the Divisional Forest Officer the mark or marks which indicate their proprietary rights in such forest produce,.......” 7. Both these rules talk about property mark which in this case is C. T. B. and no Rule has been pointed out by either of the learned Counsel for the parties which talks of Khudan mark. 8. Thereafter, Rule 10 says that no pass shall be issued for any unmarked timber or for such timber as bears the marks not registered as hereinafter provided. Sub-parts (i) and (ii) of this Rule are as under : "(i) The Divisional Forest Officer may refuse to issue a pass for export or transport if he has reasons to believe or for any other valid reasons that the forest produce has not been legally obtained by the applicant. However, the refusal to issue a pass shall be made in the shape of self-speaking written order. However, the refusal to issue a pass shall be made in the shape of self-speaking written order. (ii) The person who has been refused the issue of pass may within fifteen days of the date of refusal prefer an appeal to the Conservator of Forest incharge of the area concerned and his orders on appeal shall be final." 9. Rule 11 envisages that no person shall transport or cause to be transported any forest produce except Kuth by land routes, without obtaining a pass (Annexure W) from the concerned Divisional Forest Officer or any other Officer so authorised. Sub-ruie (3) of Rule 11 prohibits any person from transporting or causing the transport of any timber except firewood, pulpwood and bamboos, unless the timber is properly affixed with one export hammer mark by the Forest Officer authorised by the Conservator of Forest concerned. Sub-rule (4; (a) authorises the pass issuing authority to prescribe a route by which alone the forest produce may be transported for export outside Himachal Pradesh in such a manner that the forest produce crosses through one of the barriers established by the Excise and Taxation Department. This authority will also prescribe the check post(s) where the forest produce shall be compulsorily checked enroute. Under sub-rule (4) (b) of Rule II, the authority issuing the pass shall prescribe the route by which alone the forest produce may be transported and shall also determine the check post(s) where it shall be compulsorily checked, in case the forest produce is not to be transported outside the territory of Himachal Pradesh. The authority will also determine other conditions subject to which the pass has to be operated. 10. Rule 12 deals with the issuance of challans to be issued by the person in whose favour pass has been issued or his authorised Agent (Annexure ‘B’) to accompany the forest produce. 11. Then, there is Rule 18 to the following effect s "18. No person shall offer any forest produce for export by rail on any railway station within Himachal Pradesh unless it is covered by a pass issued under these rules. Nor will the railway authorities accept any forest produce for transport by rail unless accompanied by a valid pass." 12. Finally, Rule 20 deals with the penalty for breach of the rules. 13. Nor will the railway authorities accept any forest produce for transport by rail unless accompanied by a valid pass." 12. Finally, Rule 20 deals with the penalty for breach of the rules. 13. No rule, therefore, has been brought to my notice which specifically deals with the use of Khudan mark Therefore, it cannot be said that use of Khudan mark is necessary. Without expressing any final opinion on this aspect, the timber in the present case cannot be connected with the accused simply because of Khudan mark C. T. 14. Record further depicts that the accused in his capacity as a forest lessee bad subsisting valid permit in his possession for the transport of timber at the material time. He could have very well used the property mark and the export hammer mark for the seized timber in addition to Khudan mark at the property being owned by him. There is no dispute about the fact that there are various barriers and the last one is located at Dhalli before it could have been exported from any forest located at Shimla Forest Division to Shoghi Railway Station It is not the case of the prosecution that the timber so transported through a vehicle belonging to or hired by the accused, was not checked at these various barriers. Presumption is that they were so checked and the timber so intended to be transported tallied with the quantity mentioned in the permits. Thus, there can be no reason that the accused to have transported the seized timber along with his other scants of timber bearing not only Khudan mark but also property mark. Even otherwise, there can be no reason that the accused to have used only Khudan mark and not property mark and export hammer mark on the disputed timber. 15. Again, the prosecution has failed to show that the timber was brought by the accused through particular check posts before it was left at Shoghi Railway Station. Convincing evidence could have been collected to link the accused with the seized timber. The prosecution could have easily collected the material to show that the seized timber had been transported by him. In this regard, the possibility of the seized timber bearing Khudan mark C. T. having been brought by somebody else other that the accused to Shoghi Railway Station cannot be ruled out. The prosecution could have easily collected the material to show that the seized timber had been transported by him. In this regard, the possibility of the seized timber bearing Khudan mark C. T. having been brought by somebody else other that the accused to Shoghi Railway Station cannot be ruled out. It is well established that when two conclusions can be inferred from the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the one which is favourable to the accused, should be adopted by the Court. 16. In that view of the matter, the trial Court has dealt with the matter quite seriously and exhaustively before directing the acquittal of the accused. The conclusions arrived at are absolutely correct and in tune with the evidence on the record of this case. Moreover, this is an appeal against acquittal Unless the approach of the trial Court is found grossly unreasonable or perverse, order of acquittal is not to be lightly set aside, The impugned decision thus does not suffer from any of these infirmities. 17 The result of the aforesaid discussion is that there is no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed.