JUDGMENT Arun Komar Goel J.(Oral): Heard learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance records of the case have also been examined. 2. The respondent was prosecuted under section 33 of the Indian Forest (Act for having allegedly encroached upon the demarcated forest D Gohach C-III, measuring 6 bighas. This fact was noticed by PW-1 Gurcharan Singh, forest guard while he was on patrol duty on 1st September, 1988. At such point of time, PW-1 Gurcharan Singh forest guard was accompanied by Patwan PW-4 Pratap Singh. When questioned, the respondent is alleged to have admitted before PW-1 having encroached upon Government land when damage report was prepared vide Ex.PW-1/A and Iqbal Nama was recorded vide memo Ex.PW-1/B, but the respondent is stated to have declined to sign the said Iqbal Name (confessional statement). PW-4 prepared the tatima of the encroached area vide memo E.X.PW-4/A as also delivered the copy of jamabandi Ex.PW-4/B. Because the respondent had declined to sign the Iqbal Nama, therefore, PW-1 reported the matter to Block Officer (PW-3) who after verifying the spot as reported by the former, issued notice Ex.PW-2/A to the respondent. By means of this notice, the respondent was required to pay the damages. Since the latter refused the payment, in these circumstances a case in 4er section 33 of the Indian Forest Act was initiated against the respondent before the trial court. 3. After the respondent had appeared, the trial court was satisfied on perusal of challan papers filed before it that there are circumstances for proceeding against the respondent under section 33 of the Indian Forest Act, therefore, notice of accusation under section 251 of the Criminal Procedure Code was issued to him. The respondent pleaded not guilty to the notice and claimed trial. After recording the statements of five PWs and after taking into account the damage report Ex.PW-1/A, prepared by PW-1, Ex.PW-1/B Iqbal Nama for signing which die respondent is stated to have refused, tatima : Ex.PW-4/A prepared by the Patwari and Jamabandi Ex.PW-4/B, has acquitted the respondent of the aforesaid offences, hence this appeal at the instance of State wherein the acquittal of the respondent has been questioned. 4. In addition to the reasoning adopted by the trial court which this Court finds to be wholly justified for acquitting the respondent. 4. In addition to the reasoning adopted by the trial court which this Court finds to be wholly justified for acquitting the respondent. Another material ground for acquittal of the respondent is that demarcation in this case had admittedly been given by the Patwari Halqua. In this behalf, reference can usefully be made to the provisions of section 107 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act which defines the powers of revenue officers to define boundaries and classes, of revenue officers have been defined under section 7 of the Act For ready reference, both these provisions of Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1953 are reproduced herein below:- S.7, Classes of Revenue Officers-1. There shall be the following classes of Revenue Officers, (a) The Financial Commissioner, (b) The Commissioner, (c) The Collector, (d) The Assistant Collector of the first grade. (e) The Assistant Collector of the Second grade. (Omitted) 2. The Deputy Commissioner of a district shall be the Collector thereof. 3. The State Government may appoint any Assistant Commissioner, Extra-Assistant Commissioner or Tehsildar to be an Assistant Collector of the first or of the second grade, as it thinks fit, and any Naib-Tehsildar to be an Assistant Collector of the Second grade. 4. Appointment under sub-section (3) shall be by notification and may be of a person specially be name or by virtue of his office or of more persons than one by any description sufficient for their identification. 5. Subject to the provisions of this Act, the jurisdiction of the Financial Commissioner extends to the whole of the Himachal Pradesh and of Commissioners and of the Collectors and Assistant Collectors to the divisions and districts respectively, in which they arc for the time being employed. , S.I 07 Power of Revenue Officers 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. 2. In defining the limits of any land under Sub-section (I) 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 by or by order of any Court or any such Officer." 5. In accordance with the provisions of paragraph 10.5 of the H.P. Land Records Manual, a revenue officer can either himself define the boundaries or he can forward the original application along with documents to Field Kanungo for demarcation -after entry in the register. The manner and mode of carrying out the demarcation is detailed in paras 10.5 onwards of the said Manual. Admittedly, the Patwari is not one of the officers who is authorised under section 107 supra to carry out the demarcation and a Field Kanungo is only competent to carry out demarcation when an application is forwarded to him by a revenue officer. Admittedly, this position is not here in the instant case. .As such, the very basis of the case of the prosecution falls 10 the ground. It is high time act the forest officials as well as the investigating agency starts applying their mind to check such encroachments etc. by having recourse of law under the relevant provisions governing such demarcations etc It seems that without caring for the provisions of Hmachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act as well as without considering the provisions made in the Himachal Pradesh Land Records Manual, the forest officials are filing the cases, as in the present case. 6. In addition to this, the area fenced as well as the area actually broken is also not spelt out property. PW-I has gone on record to say that respondent was fencing 6 bighas of land and had broken the same area as is evident from the damage report Ex.PW- 1/A, whereas in his statement in court, this PW-1 has stated that about 2 bighas of land had been broken. PW-I has gone on record to say that respondent was fencing 6 bighas of land and had broken the same area as is evident from the damage report Ex.PW- 1/A, whereas in his statement in court, this PW-1 has stated that about 2 bighas of land had been broken. On the other hand, PW-4 Patwari, Pratap Singh has stated that in fact, 1.16 bighas of land had .been broken by the respondent This further makes .the case of the prosecution suspicious, although PW-1 Gurcharan Singh, forest guard has admitted that his statement regarding 2 bighas of land having been broken up by the respondent was incorrect and the fact of 6 bighas having been broken up by the respondent, as contained in Ex.PW-1/A, was the correct version. This is not in consonance with the demarcation given by the Patwari Lastly, even if it be assumed for the sake of argument that Patwari was competent to give the demarcation under the H.P. Land Revenue Act, 1953, there is no demarcation report given by him as to how he started the demarcation and what were the permanent points fixed by him. 7. Faced with this situation, Sari Chauhan, learned Assistant Advocate General, was not in a position to advance his submissions further, though he made an attempt by referring to the oral as well as documentary evidence examined by the prosecution in this case. 8. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. The bail bonds of the respondent arc ordered to be discharged. -