JUDGMENT Arun Kumar Goel, J.—Since all the three appeals arise out of a common judgment dated 22-11-1984 passed by Special Judge, Shimla in Case No. 26-S/Tof 1983, we propose to dispose of these through a single judgment. 2. In Criminal Appeal No 78 of 1984, original appellants, S/Shri Hari Dass, Satya Dev Sharma, Sher Singh, Mohan Lal and Misru Mai, had been convicted by the trial Court and in Criminal Appeal No. 80 of 1984. Daya Nand was convicted. In Criminal Appeal No. 63 of 1985, State is the appellant, who has appealed against the acquittal of the respondents, S/Shri Piara Singh, Bir Singh, Balbir Singh, Vijay Kumar and Rattan Chand. 3. It may also be pointed out at the very outset that initially there were number of accused all before the trial Court. When these cases were taken for hearing, it was stated at the Bar by all the learned Counsel appearing for the parties that the accused S/Shri Sher Singh and Mohan Lai have since died and an application of one Satish Thakur has been allowed thereby permitting him to continue the appeal in place of Sher Singh In respect of other accused Mohan Lai, there is no such order. Similarly accused Misru Mai has also died and no one has come forth to continue the appeal in his place. Rattan Chand, respondent in Criminal Appeal No. 63 of 1985 has also since died and in his case also, no application has been moved to continue the appeal in his place. 4. In Criminal Appeals No. 78 and 80 of J984, the appellants have assailed the judgment of Special Judge, Shimla, whereby they have been convicted and sentenced to undergo different imprisonments and to pay the fines as detailed hereinafter In Criminal Appeal No 63 of 1985, the State has assailed the judgment of the trial Judge whereby five respondents detailed therein have been acquitted, 5. F. I. R. No. 69 of 1977 had been registered at Police Station, Chopal. When the same was being investigated, it transpired that M/s. Mohan Lal Misru Mal and one Shri Hira Singh, petty contractors got certain trees marked from the Government land in Nau and Chak Kharchali from the concerned officials of the Forest/Revenue Departments of Himachal Pradesh Government under the guise of trees having been marked on the private lands. When the same was being investigated, it transpired that M/s. Mohan Lal Misru Mal and one Shri Hira Singh, petty contractors got certain trees marked from the Government land in Nau and Chak Kharchali from the concerned officials of the Forest/Revenue Departments of Himachal Pradesh Government under the guise of trees having been marked on the private lands. After these trees had been marked and permission to fell those had been accorded, M/s. Mohan Lai Misru Mal, who are the sole partners of this firm, sold the standing trees to M/s. Himachal Traders of which S/Shri Vijay Kumar and late Shri Rattan Chand were the partners. Prosecution case as revealed is that on the basis of the aforesaid investigation in F. I R. No. 69 of 1977, Police Station, Chopal, Investigating Officer sent two written reports, one relating to Chak Nau and the other relating to Chak Khaiachli to the S H O Police Station, Chopal for registration of cases on the basis whereof two F. I. Rs. bearing No 86 and 87 of 1977 were registered When the investigation in these cases was undertaken by the police, it was revealed that certain applications in the names of residents of the aforesaid two Chaks were submitted by M/s. Mohan Lal Misru Mal to the Divisional Forest Officer, Chopal seeking permission to fell the trees standing on the lands of the persons detailed in the applications. Some applications were filed by M/s. Mohan Lai Misru Mal and some were filed by Shri Hira Singh, the other petty contractor It may be pointed out that on the basis of applications filed by the said two sets of contractors i. e one by M/s. Mohan Lal Misru Mal and the other by Shri Hira Singh, two separate making and felling orders were issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, Chopal. Since the F. I. R Nos. 86 and 87 of 1977 had been registered, the State C. I. D., Shimla, which was the investigating agency in both these cases, submitted separate challans in respect of the felling of trees which was permitted in favour of M/s. Mohan Lai Misru Mall and Shri Hira Singh. The case out of which the present appeals have arisen relate to the felling allowed to M/s. Mohan Lal Misru Mall. 6. The case out of which the present appeals have arisen relate to the felling allowed to M/s. Mohan Lal Misru Mall. 6. The details of the lands as well as the owners from whose areas the applications were filed by M/s Mohan Lai Misru Mall are as under:— Sr. No Khasra No. Name of the owner of the khasra enumerated in Column 2 1. 639. Shri Dhiraj Singh of Chak Nau. 2. 625/37 Shri Goru of Chak Nau. 3. 632 Shri Khunkhru of Chak Nau 4. 636/4. Shri Lagnu of Chak Kharachali. 5. 438. Shri Ala Ditta of Chak Kharachali. 6. 443. Shri Naunhu of Chak Kharachali. 7. 445 and 535. Shri Jonchu of Chak Kharachali. 8. 516. Shri Jitu of Chak Kharachali. After the applications had been presented to the Divisional Forest Officer, Chopal, he forwarded the applications to the concerned Range Officer at Tharoch. Shri Satya Dev Sharma, appellant was posted at Range Officer, Tharoch. While forwarding the applications to Shri Satya Dev Sharma, Divisional Forest Officer, Chopal had directed for marking the trees standing on the lands detailed in the respective applications after obtaining demarcation from the competent revenue officer. The applications were forwarded vide endorsement No. 6275/8 dated 14-3-1975 by the Divisional Forest Officer, Chopal to Range Officer, Tharoch. It appears that no action was taken on the applications. So the M/s. Mohan Lal Misru Mal filed another application on 11-6-1975 before Divisional Forest Officer, Chopal to direct the Range Officer, Tharoch to do the marking of trees. This application was forwarded to Range Officer, Tharoch directing him to do the needful. It appears that Shri Bir Singh, who was posted as Block Officer at the relevant time in the Forest Department went to site accompanied by Shri Hari Dass, Field Kanungo for the purpose of demarcation as well as marking of trees thereafter. Shri Bir Singh, Block Officer is stated to have prepared the field book on the spot in respect of the trees which he had marked on the spot and the demarcation was given by accused, Hari Dass. This exercise was undertaken by them on 13th/14th December, 1975. Shri Satya Dev Sharma, Range Officer, Tharoch at the relevant point of time visited the site on 30-4-1976 and 6-5-1976 accompanied by Shri Piara Singh, Guard of the Range. This exercise was undertaken by them on 13th/14th December, 1975. Shri Satya Dev Sharma, Range Officer, Tharoch at the relevant point of time visited the site on 30-4-1976 and 6-5-1976 accompanied by Shri Piara Singh, Guard of the Range. Shri Satya Dev Sharma is stated to have included some more trees in the field book prepared by Shri Bir Singh, Range Officer. On the basis of this amended field book, lists of marked trees was drawn and the same were signed by Shri S. D. Sharma and Hari Dass and these lists were scribed by Piara Singh, Forest Guard. Shri Satya Dev Sharma forwarded these lists to Divisional Forest Officer, Chopal for the purpose of grant of requisite sanction to fell the trees. The matter was further processed in the Office of Divisional Forest Officer, Chopal by Private Sale Clerk, who found that the lists are not signed by a competent Revenue Officer, to give demarcation. So, he handed over those to accused Mohan Lal and Misru Mal who are stated to have taken those lists to appellant, Sher Singh, who at the relevant time was appointed as Assistant Collector, 1st Grade at Chopal On the asking of Mohan Lal and Misru Mal, he signed those lists and thereafter returned the same to the said persons Divisional Forest Officer, Chopal on 6-5-1977 granted permission to fell 196 trees only against 221 applied for as per lists submitted by Shri Satya Dev Sharma, which were shown to be marked in the said lists Felling permission was declined in respect of 25 trees standing on khasra No. 536/4 of one Shri Lagnu and these had not been included in the felling order. After receipt of necessary permission, M/s Mohan Lal Misru Mal , accused sold those standing trees to M/s. Himachal Traders of which Rattan Chand and Vijay Kumar were two of the partners vide agreement dated 12-10-1986, 7. Magna Nand, who was initially arrayed as accused was later on granted pardon and got these trees felled and converted into scants in his capacity as agent of M/s. Himachal Traders. Magna Nand, who was initially arrayed as accused was later on granted pardon and got these trees felled and converted into scants in his capacity as agent of M/s. Himachal Traders. It appears that the State C. I. D who investigated the case out of which Case No 26-S/7 of 1983 was taken up for trial by the trial Judge below, got the khasra numbers enumerated in the applications demarcated from Shri Labhu Ram, Field Kanungo and the demarcation given by Shri Labhu Ram was verified by Shri Baldev Singh, Collector and Shri AC, Premi, Naib-Tchsildar In order to count the stumps which were found on the land demarcated by the aforesaid Revenue Officers, services of Shri Sukh Ram Singh Mann, Assistant Conservator of Forests were also taken by the Investigating Agency. It appears that as per demarcation reports of the abovesaid three revenue officials, no trees had been found to be marked and felled from the lands of the applicants, namely, Jonchu, Jitu, Allah Ditta, Manhu and Lagnu in Chak Khachrali. At the same time, it was found that only one tree had been felled from khasra No. 625/37 of Goru of Chak Nau, while rest of the trees had been merked as well as felled from the Government land. In addition to this, 19 unmarked trees standing on the Government land had also been felled. 8. The applications submitted by M/s. Mohan Lal Misru Mal accused were in the names of persons detailed in paras supra which were sent to the Director of Finger Print Bureau, Phillaur and the Government Examiner of Questioned Documents for comparison of the finger prints and the signatures appearing thereon with the specimen finger prints/signatures of the abovenamed persons. While doing so, affidavits which had been filed with those applications had also been sent to the abovesaid Experts for comparison and opinion The reports of the said Experts showed that but for the thumb impression on the application and the affidavit in the same of Jhonchu, the signatures and thumb impression on all other applications and affidavits were forged. At the same time, it was also found that the signatures on the application and affidavit of Shri Dhiraj Singh were found to have been written by Mohan Lal, accused. Thumb impression on the application and affidavit of Goru tallied with that of Misru Mal. At the same time, it was also found that the signatures on the application and affidavit of Shri Dhiraj Singh were found to have been written by Mohan Lal, accused. Thumb impression on the application and affidavit of Goru tallied with that of Misru Mal. Thumb impression on the application and affidavit of Lagnu and Allah Ditta tallied with those of Mohan Lai and thumb impression on the affidavit and application of Manhu and Jitu and the application of Jhonchu tallied with the sample thumb impression of Misru Mai, accused. 9. It may be mentioned here that there are two sets of persons who were prosecuted by the State. One set is of private respondents and the other set is of persons belonging to Forest and Revenue Departments of the Government. The case of the prosecution against the officials belonging to Forest and Revenue Departments is that the Forest officials were required not only to protect and maintain the Government forests, but also to ensure that no illicit felling is permitted from the Government lands and the felling is allowed as per law after the land had been properly identified after demarcation under the H. P. Land Revenue Act, 1953. Similarly, the officials of the Forest Department have been further charged for the offences that despite being aware of the boundaries of the Government forests, they allowed the felling of trees by M/s. Himachal Traders, who had purchased the standing trees from M/s. Mohan Lal Misru Mal . According to prosecution, this was a part of bigger conspiracy hatched by the Forest and Revenue officials on one hand and private persons like M/s. Mohan Lai Misru Mall, Vijay Kumar and Rattan Chand and the staff working in the office of Divisional Forest Officer, Chopal i. e. Shri Daya Nand on the other hand. As a result of this conspiracy, illicit felling was done from the Government land by the firm M/s, Himachal Traders in connivance with as well as at the behest of the Forest officials, who knew that such felling is not only illicit, but is aimed at causing substantial loss to the Government exchequer. Official accused are stated to have forged the documents by making false representations like marking lists of the trees and having been certified by them. Intention of such exercise was to facilitate the felling of trees from the Government land in an unlawful manner. Official accused are stated to have forged the documents by making false representations like marking lists of the trees and having been certified by them. Intention of such exercise was to facilitate the felling of trees from the Government land in an unlawful manner. In this respect, Shri Satya Dev Sharma and Shri Hari Dass, Field Kanungo are the persons who arc stated to be mainly responsible, who were arrayed as accused before the trial Judge. The prosecution case is that they forged applications as well as affidavits of the applicants and presented the same before the concerned Forest/Revenue authorities for sanctioning and felling the trees from the Government land, of course, with the connivance and help of the officials who prepared those forged marking lists in respect of the trees standing on Chak Nau and Chak Khachrali which were subsequently sold by M/s. Mohan Lal Misru Mal to M/s. Himachal Traders. As a result of these actions on the part of M/s. Mohan Lal Misru Mal , all the official accused knowing that the said lists shall be used for the purpose of cheating, allowed the illicit felling. These accused allowed the said documents purporting to be a valuable security for obtaining permission from the Forest Department on 6-5-1977. During the course of investigation, it was revealed that the firm M/s. Himachal Traders took substantial benefit of illicitly felling and converting the trees standing on the Government land in an unlawful manner and thereby caused substantial loss to the Government exchequer. It is again pointed out here that the entire exercise was undertaken by M/s. Mohan Lal Misru Mal accused, who were privy to the forgery of documents as detailed hereinabove. The demarcation given by Hari Dass, Field Kanungo and signed by Shri Sher Singh, Assistant Collector, 1st Grade was found to be contrary to records. Trees which were marked by Block Officer, Bir Singh and certain other trees having been added to the field book prepared by Shri Bir Singh, were found on the Government land. The lists of marked trees were found to have been signed by S/Shri Hari Singh, Hari Dass, Satya Dev Sharma and Bir Singh, accused. These officials during the course of demarcation of land and marking of trees have identified the trees standing on Government land to be belonging to the private landowners of Chaks Nau and Khachrali. The lists of marked trees were found to have been signed by S/Shri Hari Singh, Hari Dass, Satya Dev Sharma and Bir Singh, accused. These officials during the course of demarcation of land and marking of trees have identified the trees standing on Government land to be belonging to the private landowners of Chaks Nau and Khachrali. They were aware that the lands belonged to Government and not to private owners which resulted into illicit felling, conversion and removal of trees from the Government land. 10. The aforesaid facts came to light during the course of investigation which was undertaken by the State C. I. D. on redemarcation of the land of khasra numbers referred to in the applications filed by M/s. Mohan Lai Misru Mal. The redemarcation was got done by the investigating Agency from Shri Labhu Ram, Field Kanungo which was verified by Shri Baldev Singh, Collector and the Assistant Collector, 1st Grade as well as by Sh. A. C. Premi, Naib-Tehsildar. Prosecution case further was that as a result of conspiracy amongst the accused to illicitly fell the trees from Government land in Chaks Nau and Khachrali under the garb of felling such trees from private lands. In order to fulfil the said object, accused Sher Singh, Hari Dass, Piara Singh and Bir Singh who were all public servants are stated to have abused their position as public servants for the purpose of obtaining pecuniary advantage for themselves and/or for their co-accused through corrupt and illegal means. Not only this, they prepared incorrect lists as well as gave incorrect demarcation of the land with an intent to cause loss to the Government exchequer. While accused Mohan Lal and Misru Mal are stated to have forged the applications and affidavits in the names of private landowners of Chaks Nau and Khachrali and used such applications and affidavits as genuine knowing fully well that those were forged, Vijay Kumar and Rattan Chand as well as MagnaNand, their agent are stated to have committed theft of Government property in addition to being a part of the conspiracy. 11. After filing of the challans, accused were put to trial by the learned trial Judge. 11. After filing of the challans, accused were put to trial by the learned trial Judge. Accused Hari Dass, Piara Singh, Bir Singh and Satya Dev Sharma were charged with offences punishable under sections 468, 471, 167 and 218, I P. C. Section 5 (1) (d) and section 5 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and section 120-B, I. P. C. read with sections 420, 471, 418 and 167,1. P. C. On the other hand, accused Mohan Lai and Misru Mai were charged with section 120-B read with sections 379, 420, 468, 471, 218 and 167, I. P C. and section 5 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Similarly, accused Vijay Kumar, Rattan Chand and Balbir Singh were charged with offences punishable under section 120-B read with sections 379, 420, 468, 471, 218 and 167, I. P. C. read with section 5 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act^ 1947. 12. During the course of trial, accused Sher Singh, Hari Dass, Satya Dev Sharma, Piara Singh and Day a Nand admitted themselves to be working as public servants at the relevant time and it was also admitted that out of them Sher Singh, Hari Dass, Satya Dev Sharma and Piara Singh had signed the marking lists. At the same time, they denied that the contents of marking lists were either incorrect or that the demarcation given by Hari Dass and the marking of trees done by Bir Singh, Satya Dev Sharma and Piara Singh was wrong and in case those were wrong, it was not a deliberate act on their part. After going through the record of the case, the trial Judge framed the following points for determination :— (1) Whether the prosecution has proved that there was a conspiracy among the accused to illicitly fell the trees from the Government land in Chaks Nau and Kharachli under the cover of fellings from private lands ? (2) If point No. 1 is proved whether all the accused and if not all which of them were members of the conspiracy ? (3) Whether the prosecution has proved that the lists of the marked trees had incorrectly been prepared with intent to cause loss to the State of Himachal Pradesh ? (4) Whether the prosecution has proved that the marking lists are forged ? (3) Whether the prosecution has proved that the lists of the marked trees had incorrectly been prepared with intent to cause loss to the State of Himachal Pradesh ? (4) Whether the prosecution has proved that the marking lists are forged ? (5) If point No. 4 is proved whether the accused Sher Singh, S. D. Sharma, Hari Dass and Piara Singh are guilty of using the marking lists as genuine knowing or having reason to know that the same were forged ? (6) Whether the prosecution has proved that accused Sher Singh, Hari Dass, S. D. Sharma, Bir Singh, Piara Singh and Daya Nand, being public servants, by corrupt or illegal means or by otherwise abusing their positions, obtained pecuniary advantage for themselves or their co-accused ? (7) Whether the prosecution has proved that accused Mohan Lal and Misru Mal forged the applications and affidavits in the names of Jhonchu, Jitu, Manhu, Goru, Dhiraj Singh, Lagnu and Ala Ditta of Chak Nau and Kharachli ? (8) If point No. 7 is proved whether the prosecution has proved that the applications and the affidavits had been forged for the purpose of cheating ? (9) If points No. 7 and 8 are proved whether the prosecution has proved that accused Mohan Lal and Misru Mal used the forged applications and affidavits as genuine knowing or having reason to know that the same were forged ? (10) Final Order. 13. Point No. 1 was found in the affirmative. Under issue No. 2, conspiracy to fell the trees from the Government land amongst Sher Singh, Hari Dass, S. D. Sharma, Daya Nand and Mohan Lai and Misru Mall was proved. Point No. 3 was held in the affirmative and point No. 4 was held in the negative. In view of findings on point No. 4, point No. 5 was held to be redundant. Under point No. 6, accused Sher Singh, Hari Dass, Satya Dev Sharma and Daya Nand were proved to have committed the misconduct. Points No. 7 to 9 were found in the affirmative. As a result of findings on points No. 7 to 9, accused Sher Singh, Hari Dass, Satya Dev Sharma, Daya Nand, Mohan Lai and Misru Mai were convicted of various offences details of which are given hereinbelow and other accused were acquitted. Sr No. Name of Convict Offence Sentence awarded 1 2 3 4 1. Sher Singh. As a result of findings on points No. 7 to 9, accused Sher Singh, Hari Dass, Satya Dev Sharma, Daya Nand, Mohan Lai and Misru Mai were convicted of various offences details of which are given hereinbelow and other accused were acquitted. Sr No. Name of Convict Offence Sentence awarded 1 2 3 4 1. Sher Singh. (i) Section 120-B read with sections 167, 218,^68 and 471, I. P. C. and section 5 (2) of the P. C. Act. Five years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000. In default of payment of fine, rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one year. (ii) Section 218,1.P.C. One year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000. In default of payment of fine R. I. for three months. (iii) Section 167, I.P.C. One year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000. In default of payment of fine R. I. for three months. (iv) Section 5 (1) (d) read with section Five years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5 (2) of P. C. Act, 1947. 5,000. In default of payment of fine rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one year. 2. S. D. Sharma. (i) Section 120-Bread with sections 167, 218,468 and 471, I P. C. and section 5 (2) of the P. C. Act. Five years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000, In default of payment of fine rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one year. (ii) Section 218, I.P.C. One year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000. In default of payment of fine R. I. for three months. (iii) Section 167, I.P.C. One year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000. In default of payment of fine R.I. for three months. (iv) Section 5 (1) (d) read with section 5 (2) of the P. C. Act. Five years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000. In default of payment of fine rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. 3. Hari Dass. (i) Section 120-B read with sections 167, 218, 468 and 471, I. P, C. and section 5 (2) of P. C. Act. Five years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000. In default of payment of fine rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one year. (ii) Section 218, I.P.C. One year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000. Five years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000. In default of payment of fine rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one year. (ii) Section 218, I.P.C. One year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000. In default of fine R. I, for three months. (iii) Section Ift7, I.P.C. One year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000, In default of payment of fine R. I. for three months. (iv) Section 5 (1) (d) read with section 5 (2) of the P. C. Act Five years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000. In default of payment of fine R. I. for a further period of one year, 4. Mohan Lal (i) Section 120-B read with Ss. 167, 218, 468 and 471, I.P.C. and section 5 (2) of of the P. C. Act. Five years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000. In default of payment of fine rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one year. (ii) Section 468, I.P.C, Two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000. In default of payment of fine R. I. for six months. (Hi) Section 471, I.P.C. Two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000. In default of payment of fine R. I for six months. 5. Misru Mal. (i) Section 120-B read with sections 167, 218, 468 and 471, I. P. C. and section 5 (2) of the P. C. Act. Five years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000. In default of payment of fine rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one year. (ii) Section 468, I.P C. Two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000. In default of payment of fine R I. for six months. (iii) Section 471, I.P.C. Two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000. In default of payment of fine R I. for six months. 6. Day a Nand (i) Section 120-B read with sections 167, 218, 468 and 471, I, P. C. and section 5 (2) of the P. C Act. Five years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 5,000 In default of payment of fine rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one year. (ii) Section 218, I.P.C. One year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000. In default of payment of fine R.I. for three months. Five years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 5,000 In default of payment of fine rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one year. (ii) Section 218, I.P.C. One year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000. In default of payment of fine R.I. for three months. (iii) Section 167, I.P.C. One year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000. In default of pay-meEt of fine R. I. for three months. (iv) Section 5 (1) (d) read with section 5 (2) of the P. C. Act. Five years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000. In default of payment of fine rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one year While passing the sentences of substantial imprisonment, it was order* ed that those shall run concurrently and the timber seized by the police during investigation of the case was ordered to be confiscated to the State. 14. Against their conviction and imposition of the aforesaid sentences, appellants Hari Dass, Satya Dev Sharma, Sher Singh, Mohan Lai and Misru Mai preferred Criminal Appeal No. 78 of 1984, Daya Nand accused, who was convicted alongwith other five co-accused has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 80 of 19&4 and the State has preferred Criminal Appeal No 63 of 1985 against the acquittal of S/Shri Piara Singh, Bir Singh, Balbir Singh, Vijay Kumar and Rattan Chand. 15. S/Shri Jagdish Vats and Ajay Mohan Goel, Advocates appearing for the appellants in Criminal Appeal Nos. 78 and 80 of 1984 have submitted that there is no basis much less legal evidence on the basis of which it can be inferred much less held that 298 trees which are alleged to have been standing on the Government land were felled by the appellants. According to them, the demarcation carried out by PW 22, Labu Ram, Kanungo, PW 23, Het Singh, Naib-Tehsildar, PW 29, A. C. Premi, Tehsildar and by PW 56 Baldev Singh, who was conferred the powers of Collector at the relevant point of time by the Government vide Ext, PC/216 and Ext PC/217, is of no consequence much less help to the case of the prosecution. 16. In this context, it is necessary to refer to the provisions under the H. P. Land Revenue Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred as the Act) dealing with surveys and boundaries. 16. In this context, it is necessary to refer to the provisions under the H. P. Land Revenue Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred as the Act) dealing with surveys and boundaries. Under section 106 of the Act, Financial Commissioner is empowered to frame the rules governing the boundaries and demarcations and section 107 thereof gives the power to Revenue Officers to define boundaries. For ready reference, both these sections are reproduced hereinbelow :— "Section 106. Powers of Financial Commissioner to make rules for demarcation of boundaries and erection of survey-marks.-(I) the Financial Commissioner may make rules as to the manner in which the boundaries of all or any estates in any local area are to be demarcated and as to the survey-marks to be erected within those estates. (2) Rules under this section may prescribe, among matters the form of survey-marks and the material to be used in their construction. Section 107. Power of Revenue Officer to define boundaries.—(1) A Revenue Officer may for the purpose of framing any record or making any assessment under this Act or on the application of any person interested, define the limits of any estate, or of any holding, field or other portion of an estate, and may, for the purpose of indicating those limits, require survey-marks to be erected or repaired, (2) In defining the limits of any land under subsection (1), the Revenue Officer may, cause survey-marks to be erected on any boundary already determined by or by order of any Court, Revenue Officer or Forest Settlement Officer, or restore any survey-marks already set up, or by order of any Court of any such officer." 17. It may be appropriate to mention here that identical provisions exist in the Punjab Land Revenue Act and it was applicable to Himachal Pradesh before the Act was enacted and was also applicable to the areas which have merged under the Punjab Re-organisation Act in the State of Himachal Pradesh Since the present case pertains to the old area of Himachal Pradesh, therefore, it is governed by H. P. Land Revenue Act. It may further be pointed out that demarcation is a technical matter, more particularly in the hilly terrains it has to be carried out with care and caution to rule out the possibility of defective demarcation. It may further be pointed out that demarcation is a technical matter, more particularly in the hilly terrains it has to be carried out with care and caution to rule out the possibility of defective demarcation. It may further be appropriate to mention here that in the Punjab High Court Rules and Orders, as applicable to Himachal Pradesh, there are instructions contained in Vol. I, Ch I*M, which were issued by the Financial Commissioner on a reference having been made by the High Court of Lahore. These instructions were issued to the Revenue staff for the purpose of demarcation in case of boundary disputes/Hadd Shikni These instructions were issued under the provisions of section 101 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act as it was applicable at that time and this provision corresponds to section 105 of H. P. Land Revenue Ace, 1953. Parties are not at variance to the effect that these instructions are still in force and are applicable as well as govern the demarcation in the event of there being any demarcation to be carried out, more particularly in the case of boundary disputes/Hadd Shikni. These instructions are to the following effect :— "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 out 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. 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 distance 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 points 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 undisputed, 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 (Karu kan) of which he took measurement situated between the points mentioned in Instruction 1 above and the boundary in dispute. This is necessary to enable the Court to follow the method adopted and to check the Field Kanungos 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. It. IV. 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. It. 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 io 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 in 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 if they have any objection, he 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 are appointed by a Civil Court Commissioners in suits involving disputed boundaries." 18. The demarcation is to be carried out by the revenue authorities in accordance with the provisions of the Act as well as in accordance with the instructions aforesaid and the revenue authorities are duty-bound under the provisions of section 107 of the Act to carry out the same It has been so held by this Court in case Radha Soami Satsang Beas through Shri Madan Gopal Singh v State of H, P. and another, 1LR 1984 HP 317. In the face of this position, it is manifestly clear that the function to demarcate the limits of any holding/field is a statutory function being quasi-judicial in nature It is absolutely necessary for the concerned revenue officer to perform such functions strictly in accordance with the instructions and guidelines issued by the Financial Commissioner under the provisions of section 106 of the Act and he has no business much less authority to deviate therefrom as it is likely to result in affecting the valuable rights of the parties concerned. The demarcation report must spell out so as to enable the authority/court concerned when it is brought before it, the method adopted by the revenue officer while carrying out the demarcation. With the aforesaid background, it is necessary to examine the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants (Shri Jagdish Vats and Shri Ajay Mohan Goel) to examine the evidence of PW 22, PW 23, PW 29 and PW 56. It is worthwhile to clarify here that there are three reports according to the prosecution. First is the one that is stated to have been given by accused, Hari Dass on the application of Mohan Lai and Misru Mai when applications of different landowners were forwarded by Divisional Forest Officer, Chopal to Range Officer, Tharoch, who in turn, had forwarded those to Block Officer for the purpose of getting the land demarcated so as to enable the marking and felling of trees. On the basis of this report the trees had been marked by accused Bir Singh and Satya Dev Sharma as per marking lists The second demarcation report is that of PW 22, Labhu Ram, Kanungo who had given the details of the area from which illicit felling had been done. He states that he had prepared the demarcation reports after carrying out demarcation which had been sent by him to the S D. O. (Civil), Chopal alongwith connected revenue papers. This witness has further stated that he had not been drawn any spot map. He had simply signed the same and the spot maps were drawn by the Patwari and not by this witness. It is interesting to note that the demarcation report prepared and submitted by this witness had not been brought on record by the prosecution for the reasons best known to it. He had simply signed the same and the spot maps were drawn by the Patwari and not by this witness. It is interesting to note that the demarcation report prepared and submitted by this witness had not been brought on record by the prosecution for the reasons best known to it. The papers with the help of which he had carried out the demarcation are Exts PC/72 to PC/109 and Ext. PC/110 is the copy of field book which he saw in the court and boundaries were relaid by making reference to the village map. In his cross-examination, he admitted that in the documents exhibited in the statement, he had not drawn perpendiculars on the spot maps. In this context, it may be appropriate to mention here that since the report of this witness of demarcation is liable to scrutiny by way of evidence, it was expected of him to explain the details and the matter as to how the measurements were carried out by him alongwith a copy of the field book of current settlement of village showing the dimensions of the fields of which he took measurements as also a plan showing three permanent points, details of the fields measured and boundaries in dispute. At the same time, this witness as well as other witnesses, namely, PWs 23, 29 and 56 were also required to record the statements of the persons interested that they had agreed for the fixation of three permanent points on different three sides of the property. In the event of any objection being raised, the same should have been noted. In case of any discrepancy on account of increase or decrease of the area, the same was also required to be mentioned in the demarcation report. This should have been done to ensure proper and correct demarcation and to warrant that no mistake creeps in the demarcation. 19. PW 23, Shri Het Singh was the Naib-Tehsildar at that time and was working as Naib-Tehsildar (Settlement). He had gene to the spot to carry out demarcation and had verified the demarcations given by the Kanungos in various villages and he also checked and verified the demarcation given by PW 22, Labhu Ram. 19. PW 23, Shri Het Singh was the Naib-Tehsildar at that time and was working as Naib-Tehsildar (Settlement). He had gene to the spot to carry out demarcation and had verified the demarcations given by the Kanungos in various villages and he also checked and verified the demarcation given by PW 22, Labhu Ram. He states that wherever he found any error or mistake in the demarcation given by Labhu Ram, the same was corrected by him Spot maps of those khasra numbers demarcation of which was checked and verified by him, bears the endorsement of this witness and such spot maps were endorsed by him as Exts PC/60, PC/67, PC/69 and PC/111 He is definite that the reports in respect of demarcation undertaken by Labhu Ram had been prepared by the said witness, who had submitted those. 20. PW 29 is Shri A.C. Premi, who was working as Naib-Tehsildar when his services were requisitioned for the purpose of getting demarcation of certain private lands in Chopal Tehsil. For this purpose, he was conferred with the powers of Assistant Collector, IInd Grade in respect of whole of Shimla district On an application having been submitted by Shri Gopal Singh, Sub-Inspector of Police to the Collector for demarcation of certain lands m Shimla district, the same was marked to this witness by the Collector for carrying out demarcation. Needful was done by this witness between 14th and 16th May, 1978 and demarcated khasra Nos.460, 516, 465, 537/536, 443, 438 and 536/4 situate in village Kharachali. According to him, most of the trees were found to have been felled from the Government land and he submitted his report which was shown to him as it was on the record of the case arising out of F I R, No. 86/77, Copy of such report is Ext. PC/115 and copy of the field book in respect of the demarcation carried out by him was on the case files that had arisen out of F. I R No. 86/>7 and its copy was placed on record as Ext. PC/116. 21. PW 56 is Shri Baldev Singh, who was conferred with the powers of Collector at the relevant point of time vide Exts. PC/216 and PC/217. PC/116. 21. PW 56 is Shri Baldev Singh, who was conferred with the powers of Collector at the relevant point of time vide Exts. PC/216 and PC/217. He carried out demarcation between 14th and 16th May, 1978 at Chak Kharachali Application for demarcation purposes was filed by Gopal Singh, Sub-Inspector of Police, the original of which was taken on the record of case file of F. I, RNo 86/77 and its copy Ss marked as Ext PC/81. He was assisted in demarcation by PW 29, Shri A. C. Premi." According to this witness, he checked the correctness and verified the same Copy of verification report under his signatures was exhibited as Ext. PC/ 184 and the original of the same is on the file of F. I. R No 86/77. These pertain to Chak Kharachali. On another application, copy of which is was Ext. PC/182 in respect of Chak Nau, verification and correctness was checked by this witness with the assistance of Shri A. C Premi, PW 29 and copy of verification report of Ext PC/183 In fact, from the statement of this witness, it is manifestly clear that they had verified and checked the correctness of the report given by Shri Het Ram Spot memos of demarcation prepared by the team were also found correct on checking This witness has further stated that Shri A C. Premi prepared his independent demarcation reports which were counter-signed by him and copies thereof are Exts. PC/11: and PC/118. According to this witness, no map of difference was prepared by this witness with those of the demarcation carried out by Shri Hari Dass, appellant. 22. A perusal of the statement of the witnesses, namely, PWs 22, 23, 2^ and 56 it is clear that the demarcation carried out by them is not in consonance with the instructions issued by the Financial Commissioner referred to hereinabove. Further it is not known as to of which area the demarcation was carried out and so much so the statements of the landowners were not recorded. Further it is not known as to of which area the demarcation was carried out and so much so the statements of the landowners were not recorded. Unless the report submitted by Hari Dass, appellant was also compared, with the reports submitted by these witnesses, it could not be known as to in relation to which of the areas the reports of these PWs related to In fact, the report submitted by PW 22, Shri Labhu Ram had not been brought on record and the report submitted by PW 56 is more or less in the nature of verification of demarcation carried out by Shri Het Ram, Naib-Tehsildar. 23. While stressing his submission further Shri Jagdish Vats has submitted that the spot maps prepared were not there on the file. So, its copies are inadmissible. Government lands were not measured. Unless the boundaries of Chak Nau and Chak Kharachali as well as that of Government lands were measured by ascertaining permanent fixed points and thereafter the demarcation was carried out in accordance with law, the same is no demarcation in the eyes of law. According to Shri Jagdish Vats, the spot maps Exts, PC/117 and PC/120 were not drawn as per Shajra Kishatwar and the demarcation being in violation of Chapter 4 39 and Chapter 10.7 of the H. P. Land Records Manual as carried out by the aforesaid PWs, no reliance can be placed on the same and it would be totally unsafe to convict the appellants on the basis thereof. 24. Shri Vats has further submitted that Ext. PC/117 is an unauthenticated copy on which no reliance can be placed. Similarly, when there was discrepancy in the earlier demarcation i.e. as given by Hari Dass, appellant as well as in those given by the PWs referred to hereinabove, Naksha Tawafat ought to have been prepared on Exts PC/117 and PC/120 and in the absence of such Naksha, the demarcation reports Exts. PC/115 and PC/118 cannot be supported. Similarly, according to him, there is nothing to show that Ext. PC/117 and Ext PC/120 are true and correct copies of the originals to which a reference was made by PW 29 in the case file of F. I. R. No 86/77. So, these cannot be looked into for any purpose whatsoever. PC/115 and PC/118 cannot be supported. Similarly, according to him, there is nothing to show that Ext. PC/117 and Ext PC/120 are true and correct copies of the originals to which a reference was made by PW 29 in the case file of F. I. R. No 86/77. So, these cannot be looked into for any purpose whatsoever. He has gone to the extent of submitting that from Exts PC/ 117 and PC/120, it cannot be made out that to which areas references are being made therein and there is no evidence of any of the PWs on oath regarding preparation of these maps Similarly, according to the learned Counsel, in the absence of demarcation report submitted by PW 22, Ext. PC/60 to Ext. PC/71 and Ext PC/121 to Ext, PC/128 are meaningless and no benefit can be derived therefrom by the prosecution since these are not prepared from Musavi and being contrary to the instructions governing the demarcation. He has submitted that on this sole ground, the prosecution case must fail and has prayed for allowing the appeals and consequently acquitting the appellants. 25. At the risk of repetition, it may be mentioned here that in accordance with the provisions of the Act, the order of demarcation is quasi-judicial and it attains finality unless it is set aside by an appropriate revenue officer in heirarchy of such officers. Reference may be made usefully in this connection to the case of Radha Soami Satsang, Beas (supra). In these circumstances, having recourse to demarcations one after the other is not legally permissible. Even PW 29 has admitted that demarcations given by revenue officers do not tally with each other and some difference between the two demarcations is always there. As such to say that the latter demarcation given by PWs 22, 23, 29 and 56 are correct, cannot be said with exactitude unless the former demarcation is proved erroneous. On these basis, it would be unsafe to hold that the demarcations given by the said PWs pointing out the illicit felling of trees from the Government land. 26. Shri Vats has submitted further that once ultimate object of the conspiracy falls, which according to him, has completely fallen, then other circumstances relied upon by the learned Special Judge while convicting the appellants, are of no consequence He has submitted that on this ground also, the appellants are entitled to acquittal. 26. Shri Vats has submitted further that once ultimate object of the conspiracy falls, which according to him, has completely fallen, then other circumstances relied upon by the learned Special Judge while convicting the appellants, are of no consequence He has submitted that on this ground also, the appellants are entitled to acquittal. Shri Vats submits that the evidence of conspiracy directly, indirectly or even remotely is missing in the present case. There is nothing to show that there was agreement between two or more persons to do an illegal act or to do a legal act by illegal means so as to bring home the offence of conspiracy against the appellants. Needless to say that in the absence of the agreement not being an agreement to commit an offence, that would not tantamount to conspiracy unless overt act by one or more persons in furtherance of such agreement is brought home. Further, the offence is complete as soon as meeting of minds, unity and community of purpose between the conspirators to do the illegal act or a legal act with illegal means is made out. Needless to reiterate here that conspiracy itself is a substantive offence distinct from an offence which is committed in pursuance of the conspiracy Another salient ingredient of conspiracy is that it is not necessary that all the conspirators must know each and every detail of the conspiracy as long as they are co-participators in the main object of the conspiracy. There may be so many devices and techniques adopted to achieve the common goal of the conspiracy and there may be division of performances in the chain of actions with one object to achieve the real end of which every collaborator must be aware and in which each one of them must be interested. There must be unity of object or purpose but there may be plurality of means sometimes even unknown to one another, amongst the conspirators. In achieving the goal, several offences may be committed by some of the conspirators even unknown to the others. There must be unity of object or purpose but there may be plurality of means sometimes even unknown to one another, amongst the conspirators. In achieving the goal, several offences may be committed by some of the conspirators even unknown to the others. The only relevant factor is that all means adopted and illegal acts done must be and purported to be done in furtherance of the object of the conspiracy ; even though there may be sometimes misfire or over-shooting by some of the conspirators without the knowledge of the others, it will not affect the culpability of those others when they are associated with the object of the conspiracy There is nothing to warrant that there was any such act committed by the appellants. 27. Pt. Om Parkash Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General has referred to the statements of PWs 22, 23, 29 and 56 besides other PWs and has tried to support the demarcation reports of PWs and has submitted that illicit felling of trees has been proved to the hilt from the Government land as a result of conspiracy on the part of the appellants and the respondents should have been convicted by the learned Special Judge He has submitted that while dismissing the appeals of the appellants, the appeal of the State deserves to be allowed, The denudation of the forest wealth has led not only to financial loss to the State, but has also created havoc leading to ecological and environmental hazards He has further submitted that no prejudice has been shown by the appellant-State by non-following the procedure prescribed by the Financial Commissioner for carrying out demarcation although while making this submission, he has submitted that the demarcations are strictly as per the instructions of the Financial Commissioner and the same deserve to be upheld, 28. We have given our best thought to the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties and we are of the considered view that the conviction and sentences imposed upon the appellants in Criminal Appeals No, 80 of 1984 and 78 of 1984 cannot be sustained. We have given our best thought to the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties and we are of the considered view that the conviction and sentences imposed upon the appellants in Criminal Appeals No, 80 of 1984 and 78 of 1984 cannot be sustained. In order to bring home the charge against the appellants, it was necessary for the prosecution to have led cogent, convincing and reliable evidence to enable the Court to form a definite opinion that the stamps of the felled trees which had been marked by the appellants Bir Singh and Satya Dev Sharma and demarcated by Hari Dass as per marking lists prepared by Bir Singh and Satya Dev Sharma were not on private land, but on the Government land for which it was absolutely necessary to have obtained demarcation strictly in accordance with the aforementioned instructions in the absence of which it is neither possible nor safe to hold that M/s Himachal Traders through its partners Vijay Kumar and late Rattan Chand felled and removed the trees from the Government land. Similarly, there is nothing on record to suggest that the appellant, Hari Dass failed to discharge his statutory duty while carrying out demarcation in accordance with law in the absence whereof, it may again be clarified here, the Special Judge erred in holding that the accused Bir Singh and Satya Dev Sharma did not correctly mark the trees on the private land In the absence of basic facts which are required to be proved on record by the prosecution and that having not been done so in accordance with law, we are of the view that the conviction and consequential sentences imposed upon the accused-appellants are liable to be set aside. 29. Lastly, there is nothing on record to show that the firm M/s. Himachal Traders of which Vijay Kumar and Rattan Chand were the partners, who were the purchasers of standing trees from the appellants Mohan Lal and Misru Mal, had furnished forged documents knowing them to be of such a nature and thereby, they took undue pecuniary advantage. Similarly, there is no evidence to show that they had participated in getting the applications either filed before the forest authorities or they were present at the time of demarcation and/or preparation of lists. Similarly, there is no evidence to show that they had participated in getting the applications either filed before the forest authorities or they were present at the time of demarcation and/or preparation of lists. In fact, these persons came into arena after the demarcation had been done and marking lists had been prepared by the concerned revenue/forest staff, As such to hold these respondents a part of the conspiracy is not justified. Therefore, the acquittal of these respondents is perfectly justified and legal and calls for no interference. No other point has been urged before us 30. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, Criminal Appeals No. 78 and 80 of 1984 are allowed and consequently the conviction and sentences imposed upon the appellants are set aside. Their bail bonds are discharged. Fine, if any, paid by them is ordered to be refunded to them. Similarly, Criminal Appeal No 63 of 1985 filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh against the acquittal of the respondents mentioned in the said appeal is dismissed Appeal allowed.