JUDGMENT Arun Kumar Goel, J.: .All the appellants alongwith Om Parkash son of Dhana Ram were challaned and prosecuted before the Special Judge, Shim la in Criminal Case No.30-S/7 of 1988. By means of impugned judgment dated 28-12-1989, appellants have been held guilty. Appellants Giaru Ram, Chattar Singh, Nathu Ram, Partap Singh and Dhana Ram were held guilty of offences I under Sections 120-B, 167,218,379 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Appellant Dhana Ram was convicted for the offences under Sections 120-B and 379 of the I.P.C. and Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act, whereas other appellants, namely, Giaru Ram, Chattar Singh, Nathu Ram and Partap Singh were punished for offences under Sections 120-B, 167, 218 of the I.P.C. and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. In the opinion of the trial court, none of the appellants was entitled to benefit of either under Section 18 of the Probation of Offenders Act or Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Consequently, the sentences imposed upon each one of the appellants is as under: Sr. No. Name of appellant Offence U/Sec. Sentence 1. Dhana Ram 379IPC 33 of In Indian Forest Act One year R.I. and also to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- in default whereof, he will undergo further R.I. of 6 months. R.I. for 6 months and fine Rs.500/- in default of payment whereof 3 months R.I. 2. Chattar Singh 167 IPC One year R.I. 218 IPC -do- 5(2) of Prevevention of Corruption Act Two years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default whereof, he will undergo further R.I. for 6 months. 3. Nathu Ram, -do- -do- 4. Partap Singh -do- -do- 5. Giaru Ram -do- -do- All sentences have been ordered to run concurrently and further trial court was of the view that there was no necessity to pass separate sentences under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. Appellants have questioned this judgment passed by the trial court in the present appeal. 2. In order to properly appreciate the submissions of Shri. G. D. Verma, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, it is considered necessary to notice facts of this case. Appellants have questioned this judgment passed by the trial court in the present appeal. 2. In order to properly appreciate the submissions of Shri. G. D. Verma, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, it is considered necessary to notice facts of this case. All the appellants and Om Parkash were prosecuted for offence punishable under Sections 120-B, 167, 218, 379, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. According to prosecution, all the persons accused in the case had entered into a conspiracy and as a consequence thereof, illicit demarcation was stated to have been given by Giaru Ram, field Kanungo and further the trees were illegally marked by forest officials, namely, Chattar Singh, Nathu Ram and Partap Singh. This conspiracy was hatched with a purpose to cause wrongful loss aimed at giving undue advantage to the appellant Dhana Ram. It was further case of the prosecution that either for obtaining personal gain for themselves or to provide the same to Dhana Ram and his son Om Parkash, this conspiracy was hatched by all the persons accused of the offences which resulted in causing substantial financial loss to the State, as the forest and revenue officials knowing well that it is their duty not only to give correct demarcation as also to mark the trees standing on the private land of the land owners, but also to ensure that no illicit felling takes place, besides it being also their duty to protect the government property in their capacity as public servants. 3. One Sukh Ram resident of village Khagna had entered into an agreement to sell standing trees on his land comprised in Khasras No.20 ,21, 18, 32, 40 and 52 to appellant Dhana Ram. Before the sale of these trees, the applicant Sukh Ram was required to get demarcation of his land, for which purpose he moved an application before the Tehsildar, Chopal. Another application was also moved by him before Divisional Forest Officer, Chopal for marking of trees after the demarcation had been undertaken by the revenue staff. Before the sale of these trees, the applicant Sukh Ram was required to get demarcation of his land, for which purpose he moved an application before the Tehsildar, Chopal. Another application was also moved by him before Divisional Forest Officer, Chopal for marking of trees after the demarcation had been undertaken by the revenue staff. Application for demarcation addressed to Tehsildar Chopal was forwarded by him to Giaru Ram Field Kanungo, who carried out the same in the presence of Chattar Singh Assistant Conservator of Forest, Nathu Ram Block Forest Officer and Partap Singh Field Kanungo, besides these persons Dhana Ram appellant and Sukh Ram were also present at the time of demarcation. 50 trees were marked by Chattar Singh according to prosecution after demarcation with his personal hammer No. HP- 1122. At the end of the marking list, certificate was appended by appellants other than Dhana Ram to the effect that none of the marked trees was on the Government land which adjoined the land of Sukh Ram. Chattar Singh appellant on the basis of these marking lists had re-commended the case to the Divisional Forest Officer, Chopal to issue felling order in respect of said trees and felling order was issued in favour of Sukh Ram vide No.5041/R dated 31-8-1980. Further case of the prosecution is that Chattar Singh appellant wrote another letter to the Divisional Forest Officer, Chopal that demarcation of land comprising in Khasra No.52 was undertaken on 29-8-1980 and as a consequence of such demarcation, 17 trees were marked, marking list of such trees was prepared where Chattar Singh had mentioned that no tree had been marked on the government land. Chattar Singh appellant had written on the same day to the Divisional Forest Officer, Chopal to issue felling permission regarding these 17 marked trees, which permission was granted vide felling order No.3/CC dated 30- 9-1980. Since the necessary permission to fell trees had been accorded by the Divisional Forest Officer, Chopal, therefore, Dhana Ram appellant felled those trees and converted them into scants along with his son Om Parkash (since acquitted). Since the necessary permission to fell trees had been accorded by the Divisional Forest Officer, Chopal, therefore, Dhana Ram appellant felled those trees and converted them into scants along with his son Om Parkash (since acquitted). After conversion of timber, launching lists were prepared by Dhana Ram appellant and.the same were verified by the forest officials above named whereon also certificate was recorded to the effect that no tree had been felled from the government land, on the basis of such launching lists, export permits were issued by the Divisional Forest Officer, Chopal in favour of Dhana Ram appellant pursuant to which the entire converted timber was exported. 4. According to prosecution case that a secret information was received regarding the fact that Dhana Ram felled trees from the Government land which adjoined the land of Sukh Ram, on receipt of such information, inquiry was undertaken by Ram Swarup, S.I. who obtained demarcation of the land of Sukh Ram from Chander Mani (PW-2) Naib Tehsildar, Chopal, who reported that 12 trees had been cut and felled on government land adjoining the land of Sukh Ram and on the stumps of these trees, there were hammer marks of hammer No.1122. As a consequence of the inquiry undertaken by Ram Swarup, S.I., he got a case registered with the Police Station Enforcement, South Zone, Shimla for which purpose he sent a Ruqa. It is in these circumstances that a case was registered. In this background, it was alleged that 12 trees were marked on Government land as a result of wrong demarcation and preparation of incorrect marking lists by the concerned revenue/forest officials and were shown to have been marked on private land Sukh Ram. False, certificates were given on the marking lists, which resulted in issuing felling permission. Not only this, but after the felling and thereafter conversion into scants of such 12 trees, incorrect launching lists were prepared by Dhana Ram appellant and again incorrect/false certificates were issued thereon to the effect that no tree had been felled from the Government land, export permits were issued by the Divisional Forest Officer Chopal in favour of Dhana Ram appellant, resulting in the export of the entire converted timber from these trees. 5. After the registration of the case, when the investigation commenced, again demarcations were obtained from Chander Mani, Naib Tehsildar as well as from Bau Ram, Tehsildar, Chopal. 5. After the registration of the case, when the investigation commenced, again demarcations were obtained from Chander Mani, Naib Tehsildar as well as from Bau Ram, Tehsildar, Chopal. According to the report of Babu Ram, Tehsildar (PW-3), 11 trees were felled instead of 12 trees as opined by Chander Mani. Other records from revenue and forest departments was taken into custody by the Investigating Officer and after obtaining sanction for prosecuting the appellants (other than Dhana Ram) from the concerned authorities, as well as after completion of the investigation, challan was put in court by the police. 6. Trial court after consideration of the whole matter was of the view that there were prima facie circumstances for proceeding against all of them and as such, they were charge sheeted. It may be appropriate to mention here that Om Parkash has been acquitted of all the charges whereas appellant Partap Singh acquitted of charges under Sections 468 and 471 of the I.P.C. and have been convicted and sentenced for commission of different offences as detailed here-in-above in this judgment. 7. In order to sustain its case, prosecution has examined 36 witnesses and enormous documents have been placed on the record of the case, statements of all the accused persons were recorded by the trial court and Giaru Ram, Field Kanungo also examined three defence witnesses and ultimate result of the trial was conviction and sentences of the appellants. 8. It may be appropriate to mention here that the case of the officials appellants is that so far the demarcation carried out by Giaru Ram, Field Kanungo is concerned, it was correctly undertaken by him in the presence of forest officials who had thereafter marked the trees and had prepared the marking lists, which were duly certified by the forest and revenue officials to the effect that no tree has been marked on government land, which adjoins the land of Sukh Ram applicant! both at the time when demarcation was given in the first instance as well as when it was subsequently given in respect of khasra No.52. According to the appellants that in these circumstances, there was no question of there being any conspiracy as alleged against them and pursuant to such conspiracy there was no illicit felling or export undertaken by Dhana Ram. According to the appellants that in these circumstances, there was no question of there being any conspiracy as alleged against them and pursuant to such conspiracy there was no illicit felling or export undertaken by Dhana Ram. It was further urged that the demarcation relied upon by the trial court for holding the appellants guilty of conspiracy, illicit felling being the consequence of wrong demarcation and marking given by the concerned revenue and forest officials is no demarcation in the eyes of law, thus no benefit can be derived by the -State from such demarcations and the conviction recorded against them cannot be sustained. It was further urged that Ex.P-3 8 the so called demarcation report given by PW-3 is no demarcation in the eyes of law and further the demarcations given by PWs 2 and 3 are not in accordance with law being contrary to the provisions of H.P. Land Revenue Act governing said demarcations as well as instructions issued by the Financial Commissioner, H.P. governing such demarcation by the revenue staff. 9. In order to succeed in its case, the prosecution is required to show that the demarcation given by Giaru Ram appellant on the basis of which marking of trees were undertaken by the concerned forest officials was incorrect as a part of the conspiracy culminating into preparation of wrong lists on the basis of such demarcation. Further consequence of this is the wrong certification of the demarcation report as well preparing lists by the officials of the concerned departments and this was aimed at causing loss to the State as well as providing wrongful gain to Dhana Ram appellant or in any case of taking undue advantage as a result of such demarcations and marking of trees by the appellants. All these submissions have been vehemently controverted by Shri M. L. Chauhan, learned Assistant Advocate General, while supporting the judgment of the trial court who has urged that in the face of the demarcation reports Ex. PA and Ex. PB as well as Ex.P26, Ex.P-38 and other documents on record, it is clearly established that the demarcation carried out by the revenue staff vide these reports and as per lists of stumps prepared vide Ex.PW-4/A and Ex.PW-4/B, the prosecution has been able to bring home the guilt against the appellants. PA and Ex. PB as well as Ex.P26, Ex.P-38 and other documents on record, it is clearly established that the demarcation carried out by the revenue staff vide these reports and as per lists of stumps prepared vide Ex.PW-4/A and Ex.PW-4/B, the prosecution has been able to bring home the guilt against the appellants. With reference to the statements of prosecution witnesses was well as documents placed on record, Shri M. L. Chauhan supported the judgment of the trial court and has prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 10. At this stage, it may be appropriate to point out that there are number of demarcation reports which are on record, namely, one given by Giaru Ram appellant, which according to the prosecution was wrongly and incorrectly given by him leading to wrong marking of trees by forest officials and illicit felling thereof by Dhana Ram appellant, second report is Ex. PA given by Chander Mani (PW-2), Naib Tehsildar in the year 1983 during the course of enquiry before registration of case, third report is given by the said witness after the registration of the case during the course of its investigation vide Ex. PB, fourth report is given by PW-3 Babu Ram vide Ex.P-38 coupled with Ex.P-26 by Rup Singh Girdwar which is signed by PW-3 (according to this witness his report Ex.P-38 is to be read along with report Ex.P-26 by Rup Singh, Girdwar which is counter-signed by him), detailed reference to these two documents demarcation report given by Giaru Ram appellant which resulted in illicit marking and felling of trees was wrong, it was necessary for both PWs 2 and 3 to hav0 before them said reports and then after demarcation of the areas, they were to verify as to whether the report given by Giaru Ram appellant was correct or not. 11. In this context, it is necessary to refer to the provisions under die H.P. Land Revenue Act, 195 3 (hereinafter referred to 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 herein below. ; "Section 106. Powers of Financial Commissioner to make rules for demarcation of boundaries and erection of survey-marks. 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 herein below. ; "Section 106. Powers of Financial Commissioner to make rules for demarcation of boundaries and erection of survey-marks. - (1) 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 other matters the form of survey-marks and the material to be used in their construction1. Section 107. Power of Revenue Officer to define boundaries J (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 sub-Section (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." 12. 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 the 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 appropriate to mention here that in the Punjab High Court Rules and Orders, as applicable to Himachal Pradesh, there are instructions contained in Vol.1, Ch. 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.1, 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 Act, 1953. Parties are not at variance to the effect that these instructions arc still in force and arc 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 :- "1. 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 desputed land lies. He should mark on the ground on the line 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 am, then with a chain and cross staff mark out 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 no map on the square system available, he should then find these points on different sides of the place in dispute as near to it as he can. and, if possible, not more than 20 kadams apart which are shown in the map and which the parties admit to have been un-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. and, if possible, not more than 20 kadams apart which are shown in the map and which the parties admit to have been un-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 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 as the map. If there is only a small dispute as to the boundary between two fields, the creater part of which is un-disturbed 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 I 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 die position of the disputed boundary according to the field map of the settlement preceding 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 instructions No. II. IV. On the same copy should be shown also the limits of existing actual possession. IV. On the same copy should be shown also the limits of existing actual 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 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, ft 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 as Commissioners in suits involving disputed boundaries." 13. 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 die 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. & Ors., ILR 1984 HP 317. In the face ofthis 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 has been so held by this court in case Radha Soami Satsang Beas through Shri Madan Gopal Singh v. State of H.P. & Ors., ILR 1984 HP 317. In the face ofthis 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 there from 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. 14. In this context it may be appropriate to mention that in accordance with 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 hierarchy of such officers. Reference can be usefully made in this behalf to the case of Radha Soami Satsang Beas through Shri Madan Gopal Singh v. State of H.P. & Anr., (supra). Further having recourse to demarcations one after the other is not legally permissible. In these circumstances to say that the demarcation reports given by PW-2 vide Ex. PA and Ex. PB as well as by PW-3 vide Ex.PW-38 read with Ex.PW-26 are correct cannot be said with certainity and , exactitude unless the former demarcation given by Giaru Ram is proved erroneous. In these circumstances, the question to be seen is whether it would be safe to hold the demarcation given by the aforesaid two PWs pointing out illegal felling of 11/12 trees by appellant Dhana Ram as a result of conspiracy with other revenue and forest officials would be justified or not. 15. The question relating to conspiracy is the first and foremost thing to be seen. In this behalf it may be appropriate to point out that the sum and substance of the offence of conspiracy is to offend law by the parties concerned. 15. The question relating to conspiracy is the first and foremost thing to be seen. In this behalf it may be appropriate to point out that the sum and substance of the offence of conspiracy is to offend law by the parties concerned. Even in case where the aet is not accomplished although the agreement was there to commit an illegal act by the parties, still they would be guilty of criminal conspiracy. Similarly it is not an essential ingredient of an offence of conspiracy that the conspirator agrees to perform a single illegal act, in fact it can comprise of series of such acts. Needless to point out that under Section 43 of the IPC an act would be illegal if it is an offence or if it is prohibited under Saw. Besides this, the concerted agreement h an ingredient to complete the offence of conspiracy and is further not necessary that all the conspirators are required to be aware of each and every detail. However, so long as they commit such acts to achieve the main object of conspiracy for achieving the said end and goal they may adopt such means, device or commit such acts. Sometimes one conspirator does not know as to what is being done by the other and similarly sometimes they do not know each ether. However, there is unity of object/purpose and at times plurality of means. Another basic ingredient is that in order to accomplish to act of criminal conspiracy there has to be two or more persons. It is seen that the conspiracy is hatched in secrecy and as such it may not be possible to lead direct evidence to sustain the same. Experience shows that prosecution as in the present case generally relies on such acts of the conspirators which may indicate that there was unity of object and purpose in their common intention. It is well known that it is in rare of rarest cases direct evidence is available otherwise normally the prosecution relies on circumstantial evidence. 16. Needless to say in this behalf 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 on furtherance of such agreement is brought home. 16. Needless to say in this behalf 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 on 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 conspiratiors to do the illegal act or a legal act with illegal means is made out. Needless to further 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 not necessary that all the conspirators must know each and every detail of the conspiracy as long as they are co-Conspirators 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 may be sometimes misfire or over-shooting by some of the conspirators without the knowledge of the others, it will not effect the culpability of those others when they are associated with the object of the conspiracy. 17. Examining the evidence adduced by the prosecution in this case, I am of the considered view that there is no evidence of conspiracy direct .or indirect or even remotely so as to prove that the appellants were co-conspirators as alleged by the prosecution. There is nothing to say that there was agreement between the appellants to commit an illegal act or to do a legal act by illegal means as held by the trial Court. Similarly, there is nothing to warrant that there was any act committed so as to sustain the charge under Section I20-B of the IPC against the appellants. 18. Now the question remains that needs to be examined is whether on the basis of the demarcation reports Ex. PA, Ex. PB as well as P-38, it can be said that the demarcation report given by Giaru Ram appellant in the file Ex.P-39 was wrong and incorrect as claimed by the prosecution. Before the matter relating to this aspect of the case is taken further, it may be appropriate to refer as to what is Ex.P-39. PA, Ex. PB as well as P-38, it can be said that the demarcation report given by Giaru Ram appellant in the file Ex.P-39 was wrong and incorrect as claimed by the prosecution. Before the matter relating to this aspect of the case is taken further, it may be appropriate to refer as to what is Ex.P-39. Ex.P-39 is index of demarcation file No.68/80, Ex.P-40 is Tatima in that file, Ex.P-41 is the application, these are the only documents which are there on the file of this case. It is not understood as to how the trial court has taken into account the documents at Ex.P-39 to Ex.P-41 to be the demarcation file of the case wherein demarcation had been given by Giaru Ram, appellant. What was the demarcation report and in what manner the demarcation was carried out, there is nothing on the file to show this fact. In these circumstances, it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that the file of the initial demarcation was either before PW-2 Chander Mani, Naib Tehsildar when he carried out the demarcation and submitted his reports vide Ex. PA and Ex. PA or before PW-3 Babu Ram Tehsildar when be submitted his report vide Ex. P-39 read with Ex. p-26. In the face of this position no reliance can be placed on the demarcation reports Ex.P-39, Ex. PA and Ex. PB. Once these reports are not accepted there is no evidence to hold that the earlier demarcation report given by Giaru Ram appellant was wrong or incorrect. 19. There is another reason for discarding the demarcation report obtained before registration of case, i.e. the first report submitted by PW-2 vide Ex. PA, because admittedly no land owner whose lands adjoined the demarcated land was associated therewith and there is nothing on record to establish this fact. Similarly, the subsequent report given by this PW-2 during the course of investigation of the case vide Ex. PB is also of no consequence. Both these reports were not acceptable to the prosecution can be safely inferred from necessary implications. This is in addition to the fact that unless the initial demarcation report given by Giaru Ram appellant was seen and examined by PW-2, it cannot be said that the trees marked on the basis of such reports given by the concerned accused were from government land. This is in addition to the fact that unless the initial demarcation report given by Giaru Ram appellant was seen and examined by PW-2, it cannot be said that the trees marked on the basis of such reports given by the concerned accused were from government land. Not only this, if the earlier demarcation report vide Ex. PA was correct and was acceptable to the prosecution, there was hardly any occasion for it to have obtained second demarcation during the course of investigation of this case as well as to have obtained further demarcation from PW-3 Babu Ram, Tehsildar as already pointed out and has been so held by this court in the case of Radha Soami Sat sang Beas through Sh. Madan Gopal Singh v. State of H.P. & anr., (supra), asking for repeated demarcation one after the other is not warranted by law nor it is required to be endorsed unless the earlier demarcation report is set aside by a competent authority in accordance with the provisions of the Act. There is nothing on record to warrant that report Ex.PA was upset by any authority in accordance with law or what were the circumstances/grounds which neces-sitated the obtaining of subsequent demarcation reports, firstly from PW-2 vide Ex.PB and thereafter from PW-3 vide Ex.P-38. In addition to this, both these reports submitted by PW-2 are not in accordance with the provisions of the Act as well as the instructions issued by the Financial Commissioner as also under the Punjab High Court Rules and Orders as applicable to the State of Himachal Pradesh. In the face of this finding, the prosecution cannot derive any benefit from such reports. Another interesting observation made by the trial court is that report Ex. PB was submitted by PW-2 in continuation of his earlier report Ex. PA. It is not understood as to on what principle of law and on what basis this finding has been recorded by the trial court. If the first report is correct which prosecution shows it to be so, there was no need for it to have asked for another report from PW-2, and if it was not satisfied with Ex. PA, then the proper course permissible in law was to have got it set aside and then got a fresh demarcation done so on this ground also both reports Ex. PA and Ex. PA, then the proper course permissible in law was to have got it set aside and then got a fresh demarcation done so on this ground also both reports Ex. PA and Ex. PB cannot be made the basis for convicting the appellants. 20. Now comes the report given by PW-3 Babu Ram Tehsildar vide Ex. PW- 38. In this behalf a reference is made to the report of PW-3, it is clear that he has not carried out the demarcation as he was required to do. On the other hand, the demarcation had in fact been carried out by PW-10 Rup Singh Field Kanungo, who has submitted his report Ex.P-26. The last paragraph of this report is to the following effect:- "es parkar Araja darkhata mehkama enforcement ki nishandehi bare nigrani tehsildar SA. Chopal frecan ki hazarimen hazar Zababi Di da jakar uprokat report nishandehi sewa men preshit hain." 21. In this report the endorsement made by PW-3 is "Prepared on spot. Place on record." This endorsement made by Rup Singh clearly indicates that the demarcation was carried out under the supervision of Tehsildar, Chopal but not by the Tehsildar (emphasis supplied). When reference is made to the statement of PW-10, Rup Singh, Field Kanungo the sum and substance thereof is that the demarcation in fact had been carried out by said PW-3 Babu Ram whose report is Ex.P-38 and report submitted by this witness is annexure of report submitted by the former. It has also come in the statement of PW-10 that he along with other revenue staff had assisted PW-3 Babu Ram Tehsildar in respect of the demarcation report submitted by the latter. It is further evident that demarcations were not carried out according to Musabi ram an, as no certified copy of Musabi was provided by any of the parties. PW-2 has specifically stated that no map was prepared by him at the time of demarcation. No statement was recorded by him either of the applicant who had applied for the demarcation or the land owners whose land adjoined the area which was to be got demarcated by the State. In Ex. PA details of khasra numbers which have been measured have not been given. No statement was recorded by him either of the applicant who had applied for the demarcation or the land owners whose land adjoined the area which was to be got demarcated by the State. In Ex. PA details of khasra numbers which have been measured have not been given. It has also come in the statement of PW-2, that copy of musabi which is essential at the time of demarcation can be supplied either by the Collector of the sub Division or Tehsildar who is the custodian thereof. PW-3 has specifically stated that he carried out the demarcation after seeing the demarcation file No.68/80 Ex.P-39, what were the documents in this file have been explained above. There is material contradiction in the statement of PW-3 and PW-10. PW-3 has specifically stated that demarcation proceedings were carried out in his presence and supervision and the details are recorded in the report of Field Kanungo and it bears the signatures of this witness also, whereas PW-10 has also specifically stated that the demarcation was carried out by PW-3 and the said witness along with other persons had assisted PW-3 in his this exercise. It appears that without applying his mind particularly where the demarcation report not there on field No.68/80 Ex.P-39 what was considered by PW-3 from this file is not made out. 22. Carrying out demarcation in hilly areas is not only difficult but a tedious job also. Statements of PWs 3 and 10 besides being contradictory in material particulars regarding the fact as to who carried out the demarcation also do not spell out that the same was carried out either in accordance with law or the instructions governing the same, as such, no reliance can be placed thereon. 23. In the marking lists submitted vide Ex.PW-5/D to Ex.PW-5/N, except on Ex.PW-5/E it is specifically mentioned that the trees have been marked with personal hammer HP 1122 of Chattar Singh, Assistant Conservator of Forest issued to him by the Forest Department So far the issuance of personal hammer to Chattar Singh is concerned, it is established that no doubt personal hammer had been issued to said Chattar Singh by the H.P. Govt. Forest Department bearing No. 1122 as per statement of PW-9 G.S. Negi Conservator of Forest. Forest Department bearing No. 1122 as per statement of PW-9 G.S. Negi Conservator of Forest. Needless to point out in this behalf that HP-1122 and 1122 simplicitor are two different hammers and in no case can be said to be identical and same hammer Similarly, the trial court has gone on record to say that in reply to question No. 18 under Section 313 Cr. P.C. Chattar Singh has admitted the hammer having inscription 1122 to be his personal hammer. This appears to be factually incorrect and for ready reference, question No. 18 and the answer thereto is reproduced herein below: "Qst. 18. It is in prosecution evidence that you recorded certificate on letter Ext.PW8/N to the effect that trees have been marked within the land of KhasraNos.20, 21, 32 and 40 as demarcated by the Field Kanungo on spot and that personal hammer HP No. 1122 had been fixed oh each stump of the tree. What have you to say ? Ans. It is correct, but, my personal hammer is HP-1122 on one side and the other side is R-l 122-H and this hammer was used by me." 24. In the face of this position the findings recorded by the trial court are contrary to record. Another ground for not accepting the demarcation reports of PWs 2 and 3 is that both were Assistant Collectors of IInd Grade. In case the prosecution was not satisfied with the reports submitted by PW-2 vide Ex. PA and Ex. PB then it ought to have got a fresh demarcation done from an officer of higher rank competent to do so. On this ground also the report of PW-10 Ex. P-26 cannot be accepted. 25. Faced with this situations, Sh. M. L. Chauhan, learned Assistant Advocate Genera! was not in a position to support the judgment of the trial court though he persisted after referring to the entire oral as well as documentary evidence on record that the findings recorded by the court below do not< call for any interference. According to him minor procedural omissions while carrying out demarcation do not vitiate those in entirety as for all intents and purposes there has been substantial compliance with the provisions of law governing demarcation. According to him minor procedural omissions while carrying out demarcation do not vitiate those in entirety as for all intents and purposes there has been substantial compliance with the provisions of law governing demarcation. Shri M. L. Chauhan after referring to the entire prosecution evidence, further pointed out that the appellants have been rightly convicted and all the charges against all of them stand duly proved. Prima facie the argument appears to be attractive but has been raised simply to be rejected, in the face of what has been stated in this judgment. 26. No other point has been urged in support of this appeal. 27. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, this appeal deserves to be allowed and it is ordered accordingly, the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellants by the court below is hereby quashed and set aside. Bail bonds furnished by the appellants are discharged and fine if deposited be refunded to the appellants.