JUDGMENT D. P. Sood, J.—State of Himachal Pradesh has assailed the judgment dated December 31, 1984, of the learned Special Judge, Shimla, recording the acquittal of all the accused persons numbering twelve for the commission of the offences tabulated below: Sr. No. 1 Name of the accused 2 Offence for which charged. 3 1. Mohan Lal 1. Under section 468,1 PC 2. Under section 120-B read with sections 379, 468, 467, 471, 218, 167, 119 and 420, LRC. 3. Under section 120-B, I PC. read with section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. 2. Misru Mal 1. Under section 468, I.PC. 2. Under section 120-B read with sections 379, 218,468,467,471, 167, 119 and 420, IP C. 3. Under section 120-B, I P.C. read with section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. 3. Sher Singh 1. Under sections 468, 467, 471, 167, 218, 119, I P.C. 2. Under section 5 (1) (d) read with section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. 3. Section 120-B read with sections 379, 218, 167. 468, 467, 471, 119 and 420, I.P.C. 4. Section 120-B, I.P.C. read with section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. 4. Hari Dass 1. Under sections 468, 467, 471, 167, 218 and 119 I P.C. 2. Under section 5 (1) (d) read with section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. 3. Under section 120-B read with sections 379,218, 167,468,467, 471, 119 and 420, I. P.C. 4. Under section 120-B read with section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. 5. Satya Dev 1. Under sections 468, 467, 471, 107,218 and 119, I P.C. 2. Under section 5 (1) (d) read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. 3. Under section 120-B read with sections 379, 218, 167,468,467, 471, 119 and 420, I.P.C. 4. Under section 120-B read with section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. 6. Bir Singh 1. Under sections 468, 467, 471, 167,218,119, 2. Under section 5 (1) (d) read with section 5 (i) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. 3. Under section 120-B read with sections 379, 218, 167, 468, 467, 471, 119 and 420, LP.C. 4. Under section 120-B read with section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. 7. Sukh Ram 1. Under sections 468, 467, 471, 167,218, 119. 3. Under section 120-B read with sections 379, 218, 167, 468, 467, 471, 119 and 420, LP.C. 4. Under section 120-B read with section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. 7. Sukh Ram 1. Under sections 468, 467, 471, 167,218, 119. I.P.C. 2. Under section 5 (1) (d) read with section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. 3. Under section 120-B read with sections 379, 218,167,468,467, 417, 119 and 420, LP.C. 4. Under section 120-B, LP.C. read with section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. 8. Rattan Chand 1. Under section 120-B read with sections 379, 218, 468, 467, 4/1, 167, 119 and 420, I.P.C. 2. Under section 120-B, LP.C, read with section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. 9. Vijay Kumar 1. Under section 120-B read with sections 379, 218, 468, 471, 167, 119 and 420, I.P.C. 2. Under section 120-B, LP.C. read with section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. 10. Mohar Singh 1. Under section 120-B read with sections 379, 218, 468, 467, 471, 167,119 and 420, I.P.C. 2. Under section 120-B of the I.P.C. read with section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. 11. Mast Ram 1. Under section 120-B read with sections i79, 218, 468, 467, 471, 167, 119 and 420, I.P.C. 2. Under section 120-B, I.P.C. read with section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. 2. Two sets of person’s one official and the other non-official, are accused of the commission of the above said offences. Non-official accused hail from Chopal The firm M/s Mohan Lal Misru Mai through their two partners S/Sfari Mohan Lai and Misru Mai submitted an application to the Divisional Forest Officer, Chopal, seeking permission to fell trees belonging to the residents of two Chakst camely, Chak Kanda and Chak Pandrara of Throach forest, Chopal runge in their lands pertaining to Khasra Nos. 69, 71, 68, 4, 10, 23, 24, 31 and 33 in Chak Kanda and Khasra Nos. 2, 3, 107, 193, 212, 42, 3, 5, 6, 14, 76, 117, 132, 423, 36, 37, 86, 97, 98 and 112 of Chak Pandrara respectively No action was taken for some time. The two applicants again approached D F.O. Chopal by moving another application on 11-8-1975. 2, 3, 107, 193, 212, 42, 3, 5, 6, 14, 76, 117, 132, 423, 36, 37, 86, 97, 98 and 112 of Chak Pandrara respectively No action was taken for some time. The two applicants again approached D F.O. Chopal by moving another application on 11-8-1975. Shri. I. D. Sharma, the then Divisional Forest Officer endorsed the said application to Range Officer, Tharoach, with a direction that he should personally visit the site and mark the trees after obtaining demarcation. Demarcation was conducted, trees were marked and its lists were prepared and report dated 10-5-1976 along-with the said lists was sent to the aforesaid Divisional Forest Officer, who recommended the said application for according permission to fell the trees and sought the sanction of the then Conservator of Forests, Shimla. During this process, the applicants also filed various affidavits pertaining to the land owners to the forest authorities. On receipt of the sanction, the felling order dated 6-5-1977 was issued by the concerned Divisional Forest Officer in favour of the firm referred to above. 3. Sh. Sukh Ram Thakur, Deputy Superintendent of Police, State C.I.D., Shimla (PW 7) was investigating the criminal case vide F.I R. No. 69/1977 During this investigation, he found that illicit felling of trees had taken place in the two chaks of Tharoach referred to above. Accordingly, he filed two independent reports under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure upon the basis of which criminal cases vide F.I.R. Nos. 109 and 110 were registered against the accused persons. 4. The prosecution case in nut-shell is that all official accused were privy to the conspiracy with non-official accused which was hatched with a view to cut and remove the trees from the Government land behind the facade of felling trees from the private land Further allegation against them is that all of them intentionally prepared incorrect lists of marked trees and their abstract and the certificate at their foot and thereby forged the valuable documents and thus they in their capacity as public servants, by corrupt or illegal means or by otherwise abusing their positions obtained pecuniary advantage for themselves or other co-accused. It is alleged that the official accused voluntarily concealed the existence of the above said design to cut and remove the trees from the Government laud with intent to facilitate the non-official accused to commit the crime aforesaid. It is alleged that the official accused voluntarily concealed the existence of the above said design to cut and remove the trees from the Government laud with intent to facilitate the non-official accused to commit the crime aforesaid. In fact the official accused persons are stated to have forged the documents by making a false representation in the shape of the lists of marking trees and the certificate recorded thereunder with intent to facilitate or knowing that it would facilitate the felling of the trees from the Government land in an unlawful manner. In this respect, the allegation mainly is against accused Bir Singh and Sukh Ram to the effect that they recorded false certificates below the lists of timber submitted by Mangna Nand (approver) to the Divisional Forest Officer, Chopal, for permission to export the timber that no illicit felling had taken place and that the timber listed in the said lists did not include any timber that might have been extracted from the trees sanctioned to the local right-holders under the T. D. Scheme. 5. So far as the non-official accused persons are concerned, the case set up against them by the prosecution is that the applications and affidavits were also forged which documents were submitted before the concerned authorities for sanctioning the felling of the timber from the Government land and with the help of the official accused who prepared the forged marking lists of the trees standing in the villages Pandrara and Kanda, Tehsil Chopal, facilitated the firm styled as M/s. Mohan Lal Misru Mai to purchase the said trees through its partners which was subsequently resold to S/Sh Rattan Chand and Vijay Kumar of M/s. Himachal Traders, intending that the said lists shall be used for the purposes of cheating knowingly and allowed the said documents purporting to be a valuable security for obtaining the permission from the forest department in between 7th to 11th December, 1^75. Investigation also revealed that the firm took huge benefit by cutting and removing several trees including the illicitly cut trees from the Government forest in the above said unlawful manner and thereby caused a loss of Rs. 1,68,850. In other words, the prosecution version is that S/Sh. Mohan Lai and Mishru Mal accused besides others were also privy to the forgery of the documents referred to above. 1,68,850. In other words, the prosecution version is that S/Sh. Mohan Lai and Mishru Mal accused besides others were also privy to the forgery of the documents referred to above. The demarcation given by accused Sher Singh in his capacity as Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil) Chopal with the help of Hari Dass, accused, (Field Kanungo) was also found to be contrary to the records The trees were marked by S/Sh. S. D Sharma, Bir Singh and Sukh Ram accused in their capacity as Range Officer, Block Officer and Forest Guard respectively which was hammer-marked by accused S. D. Sharma with his hammer mark No. ‘904’. The lists of the marked trees during investigation were found to have been signed by official-accused namely, S/Shri Sher Singh, Hari Dass, S. D. Sharma and Sukh Ram. During demarcation of the land, these accused persons were found to have demarcated the Government land indicating it to be belonging to residents of the two chaks which resulted in the illicit cutting and removing of 493 trees. 6. The above said defalcation was found on re-demarcation of khasra numbers referred to in the application of Mohan Lai and Mishru Mal, partners of the above said firm by PWs S/Sh Chander Shamsher, S. D. O. (C) Dalhousie, Chet Ram, Naib Tehsildar and Gopi Nand, Kanungo. This fact was confirmed by Sh. Bhagi Rath PW, Assistant Conservator of Forests who accompanied the revenue officials and counted the stumps. The re-checking of the demarcated area in the aforesaid manner revealed that; (i) no tree had been marked and ultimately cut and removed from Khasra Nos. 69 and 71 owned by one Sh. Man Dass, and (ii) stumps of 19 marked trees which seems to be new ones were found on Khasra No. 68 pwned by Kanshia against 51 trees included in the lists of marked trees. 7. Statements of various witnesses concerning the case were recorded. The prosecution agency also collected the documents in the course of investigation. Specimen finger prints and writings of the accused Mohan Lal and Mishru Mai were also obtained Opinion of the Director, Finger Print Bureau, Phillaur and Government Examiner of Questioned Documents, Shimla, were obtained Apart from the said documents, Kargujari register of Kanungo of Nerwa Circle was also seized during the investigation of the case. Specimen finger prints and writings of the accused Mohan Lal and Mishru Mai were also obtained Opinion of the Director, Finger Print Bureau, Phillaur and Government Examiner of Questioned Documents, Shimla, were obtained Apart from the said documents, Kargujari register of Kanungo of Nerwa Circle was also seized during the investigation of the case. Ultimately, after completion of the investigation all the accused persons were prosecuted for the commission of the offences, under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code read with that of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. 8. The accused persons did not plead guilty to the charges framed against each one of them. In their statements under section 313 of the Cr, P. C, the official accused admitted having held their respective official positions and having processed the application of the firm M/s. Mohan Lal Misru Mal for felling the trees from the private lands owned by the concerned estate right-holders at the material time in accordance with law. Out of them, the revenue officials impleaded as accused, pleaded having conducted demarcation strictly in accordance with the rules concerning the land involving the trees in the land of the private owners. All of them denied conspiracy, false preparation of the documents pertaining to the preparation of the lists of marked trees, recording of the certificate therein, submission of forged document(s) in the shape of applications or affidavits arid mala fide intention to facilitate the commission of the offence or hammer marking the trees in the Government land not contained in the application or user of forged documents knowing them to be such for the purpose of obtaining any pecuniary advantage for themselves. 9. The Special Judge on appraisal of the evidence and keeping in view of the stand taken by the accused-respondents in order to find out as to whether the prosecution succeeded in proving the charges against them or any one of them, formulated the following points for determination: 1. Whether the prosecution has proved that there was a conspiracy to fell the trees from the Government land behind the facade of felling trees from the private lands. 2. If point No. 1 is proved whether all the accused and if not all which of them were privy to the conspiracy. 3. Whether the prosecution has proved that there was a conspiracy to fell the trees from the Government land behind the facade of felling trees from the private lands. 2. If point No. 1 is proved whether all the accused and if not all which of them were privy to the conspiracy. 3. Whether the prosecution has proved that the accused Sher Singh, Han Dass, S.D. Sharma, Sukh Ram and Bir Singh intentionally prepared incorrect lists of marked trees and their abstract and the certificates at their feet to cause loss to the State of Himachal Pradesh. 4. Whether the prosecution has proved that the lists of the marked trees prepared by accused Sher Singh, S. D. Sharma, Had Dass, Sukh Ram and Bit Singh are pieces of forgery. 5. Whether the prosecution has proved that accused Sher Singh, S. D. Sharma, Had Dass, Sukh Ram and Bir Singh, being public servants, by corrupt or illegal means or by otherwise abusing their positions as public servants obtained pecuniary advantage for themselves or their co-accused. 6. Whether the prosecution has proved that the accused Sher Singh, S. D. Sharma, Hari Dass, Sukh Ram and Bir Singh, being public servants, voluntarily concealed the existence of a design to fell the trees from the Government land with intent to facilitate the commission of the said crime. 7. Whether the prosecution has proved that the accused Sher Singh, Han Dass, S. D. Sharma, Sukh Ram and Bir Singh, being public servants made false representation in the form of the lists of the marked trees and the certificates recorded thereunder with intent to facilitate or knowing that they will thereby facilitate the felling of the trees from the Government land in an unlawful manner. 8. Whether the prosecution has proved that accused Bir Singh and Sukh Ram, recorded false certificates below the lists of timber submitted by approver Mangoa Nand to the Divisional Forest Officer, Chopal, for permission to export the timber that no illicit felling had taken place and that the timber listed in the said lists did not include any timber that might have been extracted from the trees sanctioned to the local right-holders under the T D. Scheme. 9. 9. Whether the prosecution has proved that the signatures purporting to be of Mahi Ram on the application and the affidavit the signatures purporting to be of Had Singh on another affidavit, signature purporting to be of Relu Ram and the thumb impressions purporting to be Gargu and Khinuri on the affidavit of Goru are forged. 10. If point No. 9 is proved whether the prosecution has proved that any of the accused persons in general and accused Mohan Lal and Misru Mal in particular is liable for the forgery of the said signatures/thumb impressions. 11. Further, if point No. 9 is proved whether the prosecution has proved that the accused Mohan Lai and Misru Mal are guilty of using the above said forged documents as genuine, knowing of having reason to know that the same were forged. 12. Whether the prosecution has proved that accused Rattan Chand and Vijay Kumar committed the offence of theft of trees from the Government land which was the ultimate goal of the conspiracy. 13. Final order. 10. The aforementioned points were answered in the negative which resulted in the recording of impugned order of acquittal now being assailed by the State in the instant appeal. The seized timber extracted from the Government land was ordered to be confiscated to tbe State. 11. We have heard the learned Counsel for the State at length. We have also been taken through the entire record. Shri C. L. Sharma, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellant, endeavoured to convince us that on the strength of the evidence adduced by the prosecution the case stands proved to the hilt against each one of the accused-respondents. However, after closely examining the record and considering the arguments advanced by Shri Sharma, we do not find any ground to interfere with the reasonings and conclusions of the trial Court. In support of our conclusion, we proceed to record our reasons for the same. 12. However, after closely examining the record and considering the arguments advanced by Shri Sharma, we do not find any ground to interfere with the reasonings and conclusions of the trial Court. In support of our conclusion, we proceed to record our reasons for the same. 12. At the very out-set it would be pertinent to note that in addition to the accused persons, owners of the concerned trees and who had received the price thereof from the firm, were interested persons Further it is not the case of the prosecution that the recipients of the price were also conspirators Another fact which is not in controversy is that neither owners nor cither of the accused persons were associated at the time of the subsequent demarcation obtained by the police from PW 19, Labhu Ram, PW-28 Gopi Nand, PW-52 Chet Ram and PW-29 Chander Shamsher. Another material fact is that during investigation, the demarcation conducted by PW 29 was not got set aside from the Financial Commissioner, in exercise of his revisional powers. Another undisputed fact is that the maps prepared during the last settlement were not on square system but it was on the basis of fixation of three permanent points on three different sides of the concerned area. It is in the light of the above said facts and circumstances that we proceed to consider the submission made by Sh. Sharma, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State. 13. The entire case of the prosecution hinges upon circumstantial evidence. There is no direct evidence which may be stated to have been proved or relied upon. 14. The first allegation against the non-official accused is that application for permission to fell the trees and the affidavit appended therewith to the concerned Divisional Forest Officer, were forged. The main allegation is that the signature purporting to be that of Mohi Ram on the application and the affidavit, signatures purporting to be that of Hari Singh on another affidavit, signature purporting to be that of Relu Ram and the thumb impression purporting to be of Gorgoo and Khinwri on the affidavit of Goru are not genuine, but they are forged. 15. 15. In order to prove the said allegation the prosecution has produced two of the private landowners namely, Man pass (PW 2) and Mohi Ram (PW 3) in whose name the application for permission to fell the trees had been submitted to the concerned Divisional Forest Officer. In addition the sons of two other purported applicants, namely, Gopi Singh son of Hari Singh, (PW 4) and Man Singh son of Sh. Kanshia (PW 5) were examined as these applicants themselves were no more by the time the recording of evidence in this case began. All of them with one voice stated two facts material to the case in hand : (i) that the trees which had been marked stood on their own land and (ii) that they had received the price of those trees from the accused Mohan Lai and Misru Mal. This evidence of the prosecution by itself negatived the allegations that the trees marked as in the lists of marked trees Exs. PM/2 to PM/10 and their abstract Ex. PM/1, stood on the Government land secondly, this evidence reveals the conduct of the accused inasmuch as both the accused Mohan Lal and Mishru Mal were not aware of the author of these applications or that they had not conspired either with the landowners or with the Forest Officials who accorded sanction for the felling of the trees on the private lands. In view of the fact that landowners have not been impleaded as accused nor it is the case of the prosecution that they were co-conspirators with them, it cannot be held that both these accused who were purchasers of the trees were the applicants themselves or that they were knowing that the said applications to be forged or that they were conspirators with other official accused referred to above. Had the case of the prosecution been that both these accused were co-conspirators with the owners of the private land from which the permission to fell the trees was sought, it would have been then for these accused to have explained their conduct in this respect. None of these accused persons can be held responsible for the submission of the applications which were supported by due affidavit as required under the rules to the concerned Divisional Forest Officer for according permission to fell the trees nor the latter can be held responsible for the same. None of these accused persons can be held responsible for the submission of the applications which were supported by due affidavit as required under the rules to the concerned Divisional Forest Officer for according permission to fell the trees nor the latter can be held responsible for the same. At the most the above said facts give rise to a grave suspicion as to the conduct of the non-official accused-respondents and thus qua the commission of the offence(s) by them but it a settled principle of law that "grave suspicion" howsoever strong it may be, cannot take place of the proof. The prosecution is bound to establish every fact to complete the chain of circumstances which leaves no uncertainty as to the complicity of the accused. Thus the findings of the trial Court in this behalf appear to have been based on reasonable approach qua the appreciation of the evidence adduced by the prosecution. 16. The second main allegation against the official accused-respondents is that they in connivance with the non-official set of accused-respondents intentionally conducted demarcation contrary to the rules and with a mala fide intention with a view to extend pecuniary advantage not only to themselves but also to the non-official accused-respondents in their capacity as public servants and to achieve this goal allowed the forged documents to be used by the purchasers of the trees as genuine knowing them to be forged. They did so by abusing their position as public servants for obtaining pecuniary advantage for themselves and their co-accused. 17. The star witnesses of the prosecution in this behalf are PWs 19, 28, 29, 30 and 52, referred to above, as also reports submitted by them, (except that of Labu Ram PW 19) in this behalf. Initially the police had obtained demarcation from PW 19 Labu Ram Kanungo. He had proved the preparation of the spot maps vide documents Ex. PD/1 to Ex. PD/5 aud carrying out the demarcation of disputed Kbasras of Chak Pandrara. Later the demarcation given by this witness was verified firstly by Sh Gopi Nand Kanuogo (PW 29) aud Chet Ram, Naib Tehsildar (PW 52) and then by Sh. Ghander Shamsher, Collector, (PW 29)> The initial report of verification is prepared by Gopi Nand (PW 28) and Chet Ram (PW 52) and Chaoder Shamsher (PW 29) then subscribed to it by writing his own report below it. Ghander Shamsher, Collector, (PW 29)> The initial report of verification is prepared by Gopi Nand (PW 28) and Chet Ram (PW 52) and Chaoder Shamsher (PW 29) then subscribed to it by writing his own report below it. The joint report of PWs 28 and 52 is Ex. PD/22 and that ofPW29 written in continuation of this report is Ex. PD/29. In their statements all these three witnesses have stated that they verified the demarcation by carrying out the same independently and that they used original Monti in doing so. 18. In order to appreciate the correctness of the demarcation and what weight should be attached thereto, we have to go through its nature, the manner in which it was conducted and further whether the said demarcation was strictly according to the instructions in relation thereto or not. 19. Carrying out the work of measurement and giving demarcation is of a technical type which is required to be verified by persons well versed with the settlement operations. This part of survey work has to be done carefully so as to rule out any possibility of error being crept in. Chapter 8 of the Land Revenue Act, 1953 (Himachal Pradesh Act No. 6 of 1954) deals with Surveys and Boundaries. Section 106 empowers the Financial Commissioner to make rules for demarcation of boundaries and erection of survey marks. 20. Since there was no set measurement procedure, to be followed, while defining limits of holdings of private individuals to decide boundary dispute cases, a reference was made by the High Court of Judicature at Lahore to the Financial Commissioner, Punjab for issuance of necessary instructions and guidelines to the Revenue Officer, who were enjoined with the duty to carry out demarcation of the boundaries on the spot, in accordance with the provisions of section 101 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (which corresponds to section 107 of the Himachal Pradesh Act). The Financial Commissioner issued the necessary instructions and guidelines in this behalf in exercise of the powers under section 100 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act (corresponding to section 106 of the Himachal Pradesh Act), which now form part of Chapter 1-M of Vol. I of High Court Rules and Orders, as stated above. The Financial Commissioner issued the necessary instructions and guidelines in this behalf in exercise of the powers under section 100 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act (corresponding to section 106 of the Himachal Pradesh Act), which now form part of Chapter 1-M of Vol. I of High Court Rules and Orders, as stated above. We have been informed that these instructions are still in vogue and have neither been withdrawn nor modified and are required to be followed In order to answer the question posed before us, it would be profitable to quote the instructions in extenso, as under: — "I. If a boundary is in dispute the Field Kanungo should relay it from the village map prepared at the last settlement If there is a map which has been made on the square system he should reconstruct the square in which the disputed land lies. He should mark on the ground on the lines of the squares the places where the map shows that the disputed boundary intersected those lines, and then to find the position of points which do not fall on the lines of the squares, he should with his scale read on the map the position and distance of those points from line of a square and then with a chain and cross staff mark put the position and distance of those points. Thus he can set out all the points and boundaries which are shown in the map But if there is not a map on the square system available, he should then find three points on different sides of the place in dispute as near to it as he can, and, if possible, not more than 200 kadams apart, which are shown in the map and which the parties admit to have been disturbed. He will chain from one to another of these points and compare the result with the distance given by the scale applied to the map. If the distances when thus compared agree in all cases, he can then draw lines joining these three points in pencil on the map and draw perpendiculars with the scale from these lines to each of the paints which it is required to lay out on the ground. If the distances when thus compared agree in all cases, he can then draw lines joining these three points in pencil on the map and draw perpendiculars with the scale from these lines to each of the paints which it is required to lay out on the ground. He will then lay them out with the cross staff as before and test the work by seeing whether the distance from one of his marks to another is the same in the map. If there is only a small dispute as to the boundary between two fields, the greater part of which is undisturbed, then such perpendiculars as may be required to points on the boundaries of these fields as shown in the field map can be set out from their diagonals, as in the field book and in the map, and curves made as shown in the map. II. In the report to be submitted by him, the Kanungo must explain in detail how he made his measurement. He should submit a copy of the relevant portion of the current settlement field map of the village showing the fields if any with their dimensions (Karukan) of which he took measurement situated between the points mentioned in Instruction-I above and the boundary in dispute. This is necessary to enable the Court to follow the method adopted and to check the Field Kanungo’s proceedings. III. If a question is raised as to the position of the disputed boundary according to the field map of the settlement proceeding of the current settlement, that also should be demarcated on the ground so far as this may be possible and also shown in the copy of the current field map to be submitted under Instruction No. II. IV. On the same copy should be shown also the limits of existing possession. V. The areas of the fields abutting on the boundary in dispute as recorded at the time of last settlement and those arrived at as a result of the measurement on the spot should be mentioned in the Field Kanungos report with an explanation of the cause of increase or decrease if any discovered. VI. When taking his measurement the Field Kanungo should explain to the parties what he is doing and should enquire from them whether they wish anything further to be done to elucidate the matter fn dispute. VI. When taking his measurement the Field Kanungo should explain to the parties what he is doing and should enquire from them whether they wish anything further to be done to elucidate the matter fn dispute. At the end he should record the statements of all the parties to the effect that they have seen and understood the measurements, they have no objection to make to this (or ff they have any objection, be should record it together with his own opinion) and that they do not wish to have anything further done on the spot It constantly happens that when the report comes before the Court one or other party impugns the correctness of the measurement and asserts that one thing or another was left undone. This raises difficulties which the above procedure is designed to prevent. VII. The above instructions should be followed by Revenue Officers or Field Kanungos whenever they arc appointed by a Civil Court Commissioners in suits involving disputed boundaries." Demarcation of boundaries of any holding, field or any portion of any other estate under section 107 of the Act is otherwise a statutory function of quasi-judicial nature of the Revenue Officer, as held in Radha Soami Satsang Beas through Sh. Madan Gopal Singh v. State of H. P. and another, ILR 1984 HP 317. Since the function to demarcate the limits of any holding or field is a statutory function of a quasi-judicial nature, it is, therefore, absolutely necessary for the Revenue Officer, while carrying out demarcation, to perform the function in accordance with the instructions and guidelines, which have been issued by the Financial Commissioner under the powers contained in section 106 of the Act meticulously without any deviation therefrom, since it also affects valuable right of the estate right-holders. The report of demarcation on the face of it must show that all precautions which are required to be taken as per the instructions, were taken so as to enable the Court, when the report comes before it to follow the method adopted by the Revenue Officer while carrying out demarcation and to find out that no mistake has been committed in doing so, so as to avoid the possibility of any error having crept in. 21. 21. Judging the evidence of PWs 19, 28 to 30 and 50 in conducting the demarcation of the boundaries of Government land and private land in the case under reference, there is no option from the conclusion that the above said witnesses did not carry out the demarcation and consequently prepared the report in accordance with the instructions issued by the Financial Commissioner. The testimony ofPW19 does not inspire confidence for various reasons, firstly the report prepared by this witness has not been produced and proved ; secondly he is found to be not well conversant with the demarcation work and in any case the demarcation carried out by him is faulty. Perusal of his statement shows that this witness in his examination-in-chief states to have based the demarcation with the help of momi’ (copy of Musavi prepared on a vexed paper and kept in the tehsil office for record). However, in his cross-examination he contradicted his own statement by stating that he did not have the momi with him at the relevant time but compared the spot maps Ex PD/1 to Ex. PD/5 with the momi in the Tehsil office. This witness has been declared as a hostile witness. Again on the cross-examination of the learned Public Prosecutor, this witness sticks to his earlier statement that he had a copy of momi with him. However, to a Court question, he concedes that the spot map had been traced from the lathas which fact is apparent from the detail given on top of these documents, where it has been written that they are the copies of sajra-kishtwar or lathas. According to the instructions, the demarcation should have been carried out either from the copy of the map prepared at the time of last settlement i.e. musavi or momi which is the copy of the former. In no case the demarcation can be carried out from lathas. The reason is obvious Lathas being a cloth is stretchable and is otherwise is a copy of a copy and thus accurate demarcation is not possible with its help. Thus the reports prepared by this witness carries no weight and it cannot be considered to be a record even otherwise. Similar is the reasoning with respect to the preparation of lists of stumps prepared on the basis of his demarcation. Other witnesses had verified his report at one stage or the other. Thus the reports prepared by this witness carries no weight and it cannot be considered to be a record even otherwise. Similar is the reasoning with respect to the preparation of lists of stumps prepared on the basis of his demarcation. Other witnesses had verified his report at one stage or the other. Each one of PWs 28, 32 and 29 have stated that they had verified the same by carrying out the demarcation independently and while doing so they used ‘momi’. This part of the statements cannot be believed. In the first instance, statement of PW-19 is clear as to how and in what manner the above said demarcation reports were prepared. Secondly, no copy of the ‘momi’. So used has been enclosed with their reports nor this fact of user of mom? had been stated in either of the reports ; thirdly, no witness or document has been produced from the office of the Tehsildar, Chopal, to prove that these witnesses had been issued the original momi’; fourthly, the above said reports are silent about the details of the demarcation proceedings as to how and in what manner it was carried ; fifthly, it does not show as to whether pucca points were fixed while carrying out demarcation and if so they do not mention as to which are those points in the said reports ; sixthly, neither the concerned owners of the private land whose property adjoins to that of the Government land nor either of the accused person who earlier carried out the demarcation had been associated with the carrying out of the same. The trial Court was absolutely right in holding that the report recite the conclusion and not the facts and figures on which the same are based. It hardly needs to be mentioned that prosecution is required to prove the evidence of facts and figures and not the conclusion in a Court of law. 22. Apart from the above, no evidence has been adduced to show that the above said witnesses used the same material, i.e. musavi or ‘momi’ pertaining to two disputed chaks or similar chains which had been used by the concerned accused persons earlier at the time of carrying out the demarcation. 23. For the foregoing reasons, no reliance can be placed on the evidence relating to the demarcation obtained by the police during investigation. 23. For the foregoing reasons, no reliance can be placed on the evidence relating to the demarcation obtained by the police during investigation. The Trial Court has rightly discarded the evidence of the above said witnesses. 24. A close perusal of the demarcation report of the disputed parcels of lands situate in Kanda chak which has been proved and produced by the prosecution is also not believable. In this respect the demarcation was initially given by the team of S/Shri Gopi Nand and Chet Ram, PWs 28 and 52. As per statement of former, he gave demarcation under the supervision of the latter His report is Ex PD/23 and it bears the signatures of both. Chander Shamsher (PW-29) states to have verified this demarcation (Ex. PD/23) by appending his own report Ex. PD/28 under his signatures. Report Ex. PD/23 does show that the demarcation was carried out with the help of ‘momi’ (Ex. PD/24), jamabandi and khasra-girdawari which are enclosed therewith. But this report too cannot be acted upon for similar reasons detailed above. The trial Court was right in discarding this piece of evidence too. At the cost of repetition, it may be pointed out that none of these four revenue officers associated either of the owners of the private lands or the accused themselves. It is well settled principle of natural justice that the parties who are likely to be affected by the result of quasi-judicial proceedings, must be afforded an opportunity to make their stand clear. The affected parties were neither heard nor given an opportunity to satisfy themselves as to the correctness of the demarcation of the disputed two chaks carried out by the aforesaid witnesses. On this count alone, the reports submitted by the above said revenue officers cannot be given legal effect in basing the conviction of either of the accused persons. 25. Viewing the case from another angle and assuming the said demarcation reports given by the revenue officers to be reliable, the material evidence is wanting to connect S D. Sharma, accused, with the marking of the lists of trees on the allotted Government land. Firstly, there is no evidence that the stumps bore the impression of that hammer which had been allotted to accused S, D Sharma and secondly, Sh. Bhagi Rath, Assistant Conservator of Forests (PW-30). Firstly, there is no evidence that the stumps bore the impression of that hammer which had been allotted to accused S, D Sharma and secondly, Sh. Bhagi Rath, Assistant Conservator of Forests (PW-30). who had been approached to count the stumps, has neither mentioned in his lists of stumps Ex. PD/30 to Ex. PD/104 nor stated on oath before the Court that the stumps found on the Government land by Sh. Chander Shamsher (PW-29) and his team bore the impression of hammer allotted to this accused. No link has been established by any iota of evidence on record that the marking of the trees was with hammer No. 904 on the Government land. 26. The commission of other remaining offences mainly depended upon the proof of the conspiracy, legal and proper demarcation of the area from which the firm M/s. Mohan Lal Misru Mai sought the permission for the felling of the trees and the forging of documents in connection therewith. As discussed above, neither any conspiracy amongst the accused inter set nor legal and proper demarcation nor any forgery stand proved in view of the material produced by the prosecution by way of evidence in the instant case. Even Sh. S. D. Sharma is not proved to have intentionally prepared incorrect lists of marked trees and their abstract or certificates at their feet to cause loss to the State of Himachal Pradesh. Thus, it cannot be said that official accused in their capacity as public servant by corrupt or illegal means or by otherwise abusing their positions as such, obtained pecuniary advantage for themselves or their co-accused nor it can be inferred therefrom that said public servants voluntarily concealed the existence of a design to fell the trees from the Government land with intent to facilitate the commission of the said crime by the aforesaid firm, their partners or other accused persons. Even from the applications or affidavits annexed thereto submitted by the respective owners/persons who received the payments thereunder with respect to the trees permitted to be felled by the forest department in accordance with law, it cannot be concluded that the firm or its partners had furnished forged document(s) knowing them to be of such nature and thereunder they took undue pecuniary advantage. Lastly, Rattan Chand and Vijay Kumar were the purchasers of the timber from the firm M/s. Mohan Lal Misru Mal through its partners. Lastly, Rattan Chand and Vijay Kumar were the purchasers of the timber from the firm M/s. Mohan Lal Misru Mal through its partners. There is no evidence on the record to show that they in any way had participated in getting the said applications filed before the forest department or they were present at the time of demarcation or preparation of the lists of marked trees or felling of the trees from the concerned area. In that view of the matter, these accused persons also cannot be held guilty for the commission of the charges framed against each one of them. From whatsoever angle the case may be viewed, it cannot be concluded that any one of the accused person was the author of the commission of crime constituting of several offences referred to in the charge. The learned Court below had rightly appreciated the evidence and correctly recorded the impugned order of acquittal which we confirm. 27. In view of the above there appears to be no substance in this appeal and the same is dismissed accordingly. The impugned judgment is up-held. Appeal dismissed. -