JUDGMENT Per-Lokesh war Singh Panta, J.: By this common judgment and order, we propose to dispose of two appeals registered as Criminal Appeal No.54 of 1985, State of H.P. v. Padam Chand & ors., and as they Criminal Appeal No.2 of 1985, Lakhi Ram v. State of HP., involve similar facts and arise out of a single judgment passed by the Special Judge, Shimla. Criminal Appeal No.54 of 1985 has been preferred by the State against the judgment and order passed by the Special Judge, Shimla on 15.10.1984 in Case No.7-s/7 of 1981, acquitting the accused-respondents herein of the charge under Sections 379, 411, 467, 468, 320, 471, 161, 218, 167, 165-A, 109 and 120-fe of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Criminal Appeal No.2 of 1985 is by the appellant Lakhi Ram, seeking to set-aside the order passed by the Special Judge on 15.10.1984, while acquitting him and ordering confiscation of the seized timber (95 trees) in favour of the State with a prayer to direct refund of Rs. 22,170.78 p as sale proceeds thereof to him. 2. The prosecution case as disclosed from the judgment of the Special Judge, may be stated as under:- 3. During the investigation of FIR No. 71/77 of Police Station, Rohry by Sh. A.S. Guleria, the then Deputy Superintendent of Police (CID), it came to light that Padam Chand respondent had illicitly felled trees of Kail, Deodar and Rai spices from the Govt. Forest near Chalk Sandasu during the years 1976 and 1977 in the garb of felling trees from the private land. The Deputy Superintendent of Police came to know that the revenue and the forest officials by illegal or corrupt means or by otherwise abusing their positions helped Padam Chand respondent to fell the trees from the Government land in surreptitious manner. On such conspiracy having come to light, a report was accordingly made at Police Station, Rohry by the above said Deputy Superintendent of Police. On the basis of that report, FIR came to be registered in the present case, and the investigation was entrusted initially to Sh. A.S. Guleria Deputy Superintendent of Police. Later on, Inspectors Sharda Ram, Des Raj and Babu Ram also conducted the part investigation. On the basis of that report, FIR came to be registered in the present case, and the investigation was entrusted initially to Sh. A.S. Guleria Deputy Superintendent of Police. Later on, Inspectors Sharda Ram, Des Raj and Babu Ram also conducted the part investigation. Ultimately, the investigation went into the hands of Puran Chand, Sub Inspector who after obtaining the sanction from the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Rohru, for the investigation of the case in accordance with the provisions of Prevention of Corruption with the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, completed the investigation and prepared the challan.. 4. During the investigation, it was found that in the month of April, 1976, Padam Chand respondent submitted 26 applications along with the copies of jamabandies and spot maps of certain private lands situate in Chak Khasdhar as described in the applications to Sh Puran Chand S harm a, Range Officer, Khashdhar, for seeking permission t fell the trees standing on those lands. The Range Officer vide his letter dated 6.4.1976 forwarded those applications to the Divisional Forest Officer, Rohru with the remarks that the permission could not be granted as felling during the years 1976 and 1977 was closed in Khashdhar area according to felling programme. The D.F.O. Rohru through his letter dated 17.6.1976 referred the matter to the Conservators Forests, Shimla. The Conservator of Forests vide his letter dated 30.8.1 permitted the marking of trees on 13 khasra number; put of the 16 khasras after making deviation from 10 years felling programme. He directed that the, D.F.O. himself would mark the trees after obtaining permission from the Tehsildar. However, D.F.O. Rohru vide his order dated 2.12.1976 recorded c the office note directed Sh R.P. Jaswal, respondent, who was at the releva time posted as Assistant Conservator of Forests to mark the trees after obtaining demarcation from the Tehsildar. R.P. Jaswal, respondent visited the area in t company of respondent Faquir Chand who was posted as Naib Tehsildar on 24.5 1977, 3.6.1977 and 4.6.1977. 5. , On the basis of the demarcation given by respondent Faquir Chand, respondent R.P. Jaswal marked 517 trees on khasra numbers 3589,3569,4151, 4133, 4162, 4170, 2608, 2600, 3672, 4583/4337, 4582/4337,4268,4144,4142,2612 and 5198/4337. Out of the aforesaid khasras, the Conservator of Forests had not granted marking permission in respect of three khasras viz. 5. , On the basis of the demarcation given by respondent Faquir Chand, respondent R.P. Jaswal marked 517 trees on khasra numbers 3589,3569,4151, 4133, 4162, 4170, 2608, 2600, 3672, 4583/4337, 4582/4337,4268,4144,4142,2612 and 5198/4337. Out of the aforesaid khasras, the Conservator of Forests had not granted marking permission in respect of three khasras viz. 2600, 2608 and 4268 but the Assistant Conservator of Forests did the marking on these khasra numbers also. The lists were submitted by the Assistant Conservator of Forests to the Divisional Forest Officer, Rohru who vide his order dated 4.7.1977 permitted the felling of the trees from khasra numbers 4268 owned by Sila Ram and Sukh Dass, 4151 owned by Gopal Singh, Piare Lal and Thakur Dass, 3672 owned by Gopal Singh, 4144 and 4142 owned by Shri Govind Singh, 5313/5198/4337 owned by Lala Sukh, 4170 owned by Jhina Singh, 4133 owned by Badri and Jaitu, 4162 owned by Jaithu, 3569 and 3589 owned by Ludher Singh, 4582/4337 owned by Shiv Dayal and 3612 owned by Shri Jitbar Singh, Sadar Singh etc. Padam Chand respondent entered into an agreement on 27.5.1977 and sold the trees to Lakhi Ram (respondent in Appeal No.54 of 1985). After grant of permission to fell the trees, Lakhi Ram got the trees felled and converted into timber. The trees yielded 4188 scants which were stacked by Lakhi Ram respondent in Sandasu village. 6. The prosecution case further revealed that during the investigation, police got the private land on which marking and felling of trees had been permitted and the adjoining government land and private land demarcated fro Sh Indar Singh, SDO (C), Bilaspur (PW-32) and Sh. D.N. Mach-han. Assistant Conservator of Forests (PW-3"3) assisted PW-32 to. do the counting of stumps on the lands demarcated by SDO(C) and to prepare the list. The demarcation of the counting of the stumps led to the following results that only 163 marked trees had been felled from those private numbers the marking and felling of frees on which had been permitted by the Divisional Forest Officer. 73 trees had been felled from khasra No.2608, 2600 and 4583/4337 on which though marking had been done by respondent R.P. Jaswal on the basis of the demarcation given by Faquir Chand respondent but the felling had not been permitted by the Divisional Forest Officer. 73 trees had been felled from khasra No.2608, 2600 and 4583/4337 on which though marking had been done by respondent R.P. Jaswal on the basis of the demarcation given by Faquir Chand respondent but the felling had not been permitted by the Divisional Forest Officer. 194 marked trees had been felled from other private Khasra numbers in respect of which neither there was any application for permission to fell the trees nor marking and felling had been permitted. 95 marked trees had hen felled from the government land comprised in khasra number 4337. Thus, the demarcation and counting of stamps carried put at the instance of the police in the course of the investigation of this case showed that out of 17 trees shown by respondent R.P. Jaswal, Assistant Conservator of Forests marked on private lands, only 236 had been marked on these private numbers, reference of which had been marked either on the government land f or on that private land in respect of which there was no application for permission to fell the trees nor was there any permission to mark the trees. The marking lists had been signed by both respondents R.P. Jaswal, Assistant Conservator of Forests and Faquir Chaad. Certificates had also been recorded at the foot of the marking list that no tree on government land or on that private land in respect of which marking had not been permitted had been marked. It was further found that instead of 517 trees shown to be (marked in the marking lists, respondent R.P. Jaswal had actually marked 525 trees on the spot. The application’s and the affidavits which respondent Padam Chand had submitted to the Range Officer, Khashdhar for permission to fell the trees from private lands were got examined from the Handwriting Expert and the Director Finger Print Bureau, Phillaur, by the police. The Handwriting Expert opined that the signatures on the applications and the agreement of Thakur Sain, Wazir Singh, Sardar Singh, Lala Sukh etc. were forged as they were not written by the aforesaid persons. Similarly, the Director Finger Print Bureau, Phillaur opined that the thumb impression/signatures of certain applicants on their applications were found to be forged as they did not tally with their sample finger prints. were forged as they were not written by the aforesaid persons. Similarly, the Director Finger Print Bureau, Phillaur opined that the thumb impression/signatures of certain applicants on their applications were found to be forged as they did not tally with their sample finger prints. The signatures thumb impressions which were found to be forged by the Handwriting expert and the Director Finger Print Bureau had been attested by the respondent Uttam Chand who wsa an Advocate at Rohru in his capacity as Oath Commissioner. 7. The police seized the personal diary of respondent Padam Chand during the investigation of the case and according to the entries made therein, Lakhi Ram respondent had been involved in the affairs from the very beginning as he had been making payments f huge amounts of money to respondent Padam Chand to enable him to meet the expenses on the finalization of the cases for permission to fell the trees. According to the prosecution, some of the entries show that respondent Padam Chand greased the palms of respondents R.P. Jaswal and Faquir Chand, Naib Tehsildar in consideration for their favouring him by giving wrong demarcation. Some other entries according to the prosecution show that respondent Padam Chand had been obliging ether forest officials also by dining and winning with them at his expense quite often. According to the prosecution the above said facts and circumstances, indicated that there was a conspiracy among all the respondents to rob the government of Himachal Pradesh of the trees standing on its land in Khashdhar Chak behind the facade of felling trees from the private Lands and to achieve this object respondents R.P. Jaswal and Faquir Chand being public servants and charged with the preparation of record and documents prepared incorrect record/documents, making the lists and the certificates at their feet and by corrupt or illegal means or by otherwise abusing their positions obtained pecuniary advantage, in the form of value of the trees felled from the government land for themselves or their co-respondents. They were further alleged to have forged the marking lists. They were further alleged to have forged the marking lists. Respondents Padam Chand, alleged to have forced the applications and agreements in the names of the private owners of the lands of Chak Khashdhar and to have used them as genuine in pursuance of the object of the conspiracy while respondent Lakhi Ram was alleged to have committed actual theft of the trees from the Government land and from that private land in respect of which there was no permission to mark and/or to fell the trees. 8. On the basis of these allegations, charge-sheet was framed and filed by the police against the respondents in the Court of Special Judge. The Special Judge on the basis of material on record charged the respondents who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The respondents were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C In their statements respondents R.P. Jaswal and Faquir Chand admitted that they were public servants at the relevant time and charged with the preparation of records and documents in the nature of making lists and the certificates at their feet. However, it is denied by them that the demarcation was given by respondent Faquir Chand. Both of them stated that one Sita Ram, Kanungo had given demarcation and on the basis of that demarcation trees had been marked by respondent R.P/ Jaswal. It was stated that respondent Faquir Chand checked at random the demarcation given by Sita Ram, Kanungo but did not demarcate all the numbers on which marking had been permitted. Respondent Padam chand denied that he had forged the applications and the agreements in the names of the owners of the private lands. Respondent Uttam Chand also pleaded innocence. The Special Judge formulated as many as 10 points for determination and answered them in the negative, as a result of which respondents were acquitted It is this judgment and order of acquittal which is under challenge in this appeal. 9. We have heard learned counsel on both sides at great length. 10. Mr. M.S. Guleria, learned Deputy Advocate General has referred to the statement of Indar Singh, SDO (C) (PW-32) and has tried to support the demarcation reports exhibits PA/223 to PA/251 given by this witness. 9. We have heard learned counsel on both sides at great length. 10. Mr. M.S. Guleria, learned Deputy Advocate General has referred to the statement of Indar Singh, SDO (C) (PW-32) and has tried to support the demarcation reports exhibits PA/223 to PA/251 given by this witness. He submitted that illicit felling of 95 trees has been proved to the hilt from the Government forest and 194 trees on those parcels of private lands in respect of which neither any application had been moved nor permission to fell them was granted as a result of conspiracy en the part of the respondents. He has further submitted that no prejudice has been shown to the respondents by not following the procedure prescribed by the Financial Commissioner for carrying out the demarcation. 11. The demarcation was given during the investigation of the case by Sh Indar Singh SDO (C) (PW-32). Sh D.N. Machhan, Assistant Conservator of Forests (PW-33) was engaged to count the stumps and prepared the lists on different parcels of lands belonging to the Government as well as the private owners. He prepared the lists Ex.PA 252 to PA 268 and the abstract of those lists was Ex.PA-269. PW-Indar Singh demarcated the lands from 16.6.1978 to20.6.1978. According to the statement of this witness 12 stumps were found on the Government land comprised in khasra No.4337/1 which is adjacent to khasra No.3590 and 3611. 9 stumps on khasra number 4337/3 and 4337/4 were also found which belonged to the government. The demarcation was carried out on 17.6.1978 led to the detection of 14 stumps from Khasra No.4337/5 belonging to the government. 12 stumps were seen on khasra numbers 4337/6 and 4337/7 which also belonged to the government. During the demarcation which was carried out on 18.6.1978, 2 stumps were found in khasra No.4337/8 and 24 stumps were found in khasra No.4337/9 belonging to the Government. On, 19 6.1978, 9 trees illicitly felled from khasra No.4337/11 and 3 stumps from khasra No.4337710 belonging to the government were detected. Thus in all 95 trees were stated to have been felled from the Government land. He prepared composite report Ex.PA/208 comprising 8 sheets. At the time of demarcation, the forest officer accompanying him did counting of the stumps found on the private lands and the Government lands. Thus in all 95 trees were stated to have been felled from the Government land. He prepared composite report Ex.PA/208 comprising 8 sheets. At the time of demarcation, the forest officer accompanying him did counting of the stumps found on the private lands and the Government lands. It has come in his evidence that some of the 95 stumps found on the Government land were duly marked while others were not. He has admitted in his cross- examination that he aid not demarcate the whole of government khasra number 4337 while carrying out the demarcation of private land. He also admitted that according to the entries in the record of rights, khasra No.4337 is un-measured and un- demarcated. He also admitted that Ex.PA/209 had been traced out not from the original Musavi but had been traced from the copy of the Mussvi which was on waxed paper and was kept in the Tehsil office. It is also admitted by him that the entire khasra No.4337 belonging to the government is spread in such a way that some portions of it fall in between the private numbers while its major portion is around the private lands. He stated that no application for demarcation had been presented to him by anybody but he was ordered by the government to go to the area in question for carrying out the demarcation. He admitted that he did not demarcate the private numbers while taking into account those parcels of lands which had been granted to the villagers out of khasra number 4337 after the settlement in accordance with the Nautor Rules. It is also admitted by him that he did not issue any summons or notices to the persons whose lands were to be demarcated requiring them to be present on the .spot at the time of demarcation. However, he admitted that one of the essential factors for obtaining accurate results of demarcation is to ascertain the actual possession of the owners as recorded in the Khasra Girdawari that factor has to be taken into consideration. He could not say that khasra number 4582/4337 did not find mention In Musavi and that this number had been carved out as Nautor land after the preparation of the Musavi. He has not mentioned the names of the persons who had held the Zareb in his report. He could not say that khasra number 4582/4337 did not find mention In Musavi and that this number had been carved out as Nautor land after the preparation of the Musavi. He has not mentioned the names of the persons who had held the Zareb in his report. He admitted that at the time of settlement Takhat (board) Sehpi (tripot), cross, zareb and Sisat. (an instrument having a hole through which it is seen for ascertaining a straining line) should be had. He admitted that at the time of demarcation carried out by him, he did not have any of aforesaid instruments except cross. He showed his ignorance that a special bamboo stick fitted with a hook is used at the time of settlement. 12. A close scrutiny of the demarcation report Ex.PA/208 and the testimony of PW-32 Indar Singh and PW-33 D.N. Machhan creates reasonable doubt about the correctness of the manner and even the result of the demarcation carried out by PW-Indar Singh. A bare reading of the demarcation reports shows that the demarcation was carried out in a cursory manner. PW-Indar Singh did not ascertain any un-disputed point in accordance with the procedure laid down for the demarcation. He had written in his report that he took certain khasras set-up at the time of the last settlement, which were intact as the fix points and carried out the demarcation. He did not enquire from any villager whether the boundaries of those khasras which he took as un-disputed points were in fact, un-disputed; nor did he verify the correctness of those boundaries by drawing perpendiculars towards those boundaries from some permanent point. In his testimony he stated on oath that copies of jamabandies Exhibits PA/223 to PA/251 were taken for help by him to ascertain the facts. A perusal of the report shows that khasra numbers 3589,3612, 3568 and 3672 had been demarcated on 16.6.1978 but the copies of the jamabandies in respect of these khasras which are Exhibits PA/224, PA/225, PA/226 and PA/227, respectively, were issued on 20.6.1978, 21.6.1978 and 19.6.1978, respectively. Similarly, khasra numbers 4560/3385, 5373/5198/4337, 4582/4337 and 4583/4337 had been demarcated on 17.6.1978 as stated in the report Ex.PA/208. A perusal of the jamabandies Exhibits PA/229, PA/232, PA/231 and PS/235 in respect of the above said Khasra numbers shows that the same were issued on 21.6.1978 and 20.6.1978. Similarly, khasra numbers 4560/3385, 5373/5198/4337, 4582/4337 and 4583/4337 had been demarcated on 17.6.1978 as stated in the report Ex.PA/208. A perusal of the jamabandies Exhibits PA/229, PA/232, PA/231 and PS/235 in respect of the above said Khasra numbers shows that the same were issued on 21.6.1978 and 20.6.1978. Thus, from the dates mentioned in the jamabindies, it is clear that the copies of the jamabandies, it is clear that the copies of the jamabandies Exhibits PA/223 to PA/251 on which PW-Indar Singh stated in his deposition to have relied upon at the time of demarcation were not even in existence and it is not understood as to how an officer of the rank of SDO (C) could have relied upon those copies of jamabandies which were prepared after he carried out the demarcation. This shows that the officer had done the demarcation in a casual manner. 13. It has come in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that prior to the demarcation carried out by PW-Indar Singh one Sh Ram Singh, Tehsildar was engaged by the police to do the demarcation. This fact has been admitted by PW-D.N. Machhan and even by the investigating officer Sh Puran Chand (PW-62) and Ganga Ram (PW- 34), who assisted PW-Indar Singh at the time of demarcation during the investigation. 14. The respondents have been able to show that the demarcation by Ram Singh and counting of stumps by PW-D.N. Machhan on the basis of the demarcation given by said Ram Singh had almost been completed before he was removed. The respondents have proved on record Ex.DC a copy of the monthly diary of PW-D.N. Machhan which proves that the demarcation had almost been completed by Ram Singh and even the lists of stumps had been prepared by PW-D.N. Machhan on the basis of demarcation given by the former. 15. The prosecution has not produced on record the demarcation of Ram Singh and the lists of stumps having been counted by PW-D.N. Machhan at the time of that demarcation for the reason best known to it; no/ Ram Singh had been examined by the prosecution. 15. The prosecution has not produced on record the demarcation of Ram Singh and the lists of stumps having been counted by PW-D.N. Machhan at the time of that demarcation for the reason best known to it; no/ Ram Singh had been examined by the prosecution. The prosecution has not been able to explain why Tehsildar Ram Singh was replaced by PW-lndar Singh when the demarcation by the former was almost over and the failure to explain this unusual conduct of the investigating agency lends credence to the plea of the respondents that they had been given a clean chit by SH Ram Singh, Tehsildar. It is evidently clear that PW-Indar Singh conducted the demarcation in a cursory and rather perfunctory manner. Section 106 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act empowers the Financial Commissioner to make rules for demarcation of boundaries and erection of survey marks. The powers of Revenue Officer to define boundaries ar? Contained in Section 107. Demarcation of boundaries of any holding, field or any portion of any other estate under Section 107 of the Act is-otherwise a statutory function of-quasi-judicial nature of the Revenue Officer, as held in Aadha Soami Sat sang through Shri Madan Gopal Singh v. Stale of H.P. & anr, (1LP 1984 H.P. 317). Since the function to demarcate the limits of any holding or field is a statutory function of a quasi-judicial nature, it is, therefore, absolutely necessary for the Revenue Officer, while carrying out demarcation, to perform the function in accordance with the instructions and guidelines, which have been issued by the Financial Commissioner under the powers contained in Section 106 of the Act meticulously without any deviation-there from, since it also affects valuable rights of the estate right holders. The report of the demarcation on the face of it must show that all precautions which are required to be taken as per the instructions were taken, so as to enable the Court, when the report comes before, it to follow the method adopted by the Revenue Officer while carrying out demarcation and to find out that no mistake has been committed in doing so, so as to avoid the possibility of any error having crept in. All these requirements, in our opinion, have been incorporated in the instruction with the ultimate object of ascertaining that while carrying out the demarcation correct method was adopted and up mistake was committed. All these requirements, in our opinion, have been incorporated in the instruction with the ultimate object of ascertaining that while carrying out the demarcation correct method was adopted and up mistake was committed. Accordingly, the marketing officer was required to re-lay the boundaries of the field showed to be demarcated from the Shajra (village map) prepared at the last settlement. He was required to locate three permanent points on three sides of the area sought to be demarcated. In the present case, demarcation reports submitted by these Revenue officials are contrary to the instructions issued by the Financial Commissioner under Section 206 of the Act. The learned Special Judge is right in holding that PW-Indar Singh had carried out the demarcation in a perfunctory manner and the same cannot be given arty credence. The Revenue Office has failed to identify the situation of private lands as also the government lands. 16. This Court in State of H.P. v. Laxmi Nand & ors., (1992) 2 Sim. L.C. 307, dismissed the appeal of the State against the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judge in the facts and circumstances of similar case by holding that in order to bring home the charge against the accused, it was necessary for the prosecution to lead sufficient and cogent evidence to enable the Court to form a definite opinion that stumps of the felled trees which had been marked by the forest officials in that case on spot as per the marking lists were not on the private land but on the Government land for which it was absolutely necessary to obtain demarcation perfectly in eccordance with the instructions of the Financial Commissioner. In the absence of demarcation inaccordance with the said instructions, it is neither possible to hold that the respondents in this case felled and removed any trees out of the Government land nor to form an opinion that they entered into any conspiracy, as alleged by the prosecution. 17. This Court in State o/H.P. v. Piara Singh & brs., 1996(2) Sim.L.C. 371, in Criminal Appeal No.I27 of 1985 State o/H.P. v. Sher Singh & ors., decided on 30.12.1996 and Criminal Appeal No. 164 of 1985, State o/H.P. v. Sher Singh & ors.. decided on 30.12.1996, in the same facts and circumstances of the case, dismissed the appeals of the State against the acquittal of the accused - respondents therein. 18. decided on 30.12.1996, in the same facts and circumstances of the case, dismissed the appeals of the State against the acquittal of the accused - respondents therein. 18. All the persons on whose behalf applications and affidavits were submitted to the authorities concerned, have been produced by the prosecution as its witnesses but none of them has stated that the applications and the agreements were not signed by them or that they did not sell the trees standing on their lands, described in the applications and the agreements. If the beneficiaries of the forest produce have deposed that they signed the applications and the agreements, then it cannot be said that their signatures were-forged by Padam Chand respondent and or any other respondents. They had sold their trees standing on their lands and received the price from Padam Chand respondent. They have clearly stated that they applied to the DFO, Rohru for seeking permission to fell the trees. The learned Special Judge is right in holding mat there no element of forging the signatures and thumb impressions of the persons whose trees were marked and felled on the part of Padam Chand respondent or Uttam Chand respondent, who attested their agreements . 19. The evidence led by prosecution shows that at the time of marking of the trees be respondent R.P. Jaswal, demarcation was not given by Faquir Chand respondent but was given by one Sita Ram, Kanungo and one Goppu Ram, Patwari, who assisted him in carrying out the demarcation. A perusal of the demarcation report Ex.PA/208 prepared by PW-Indar Singh shows that the demarcation in dispute had been given by Sita Ram, Field Kanungo. In the opening paragraph of his report, he has recorded that Sita Ram, Field Kanurgo who had given demarcation earlier was also present at the time of second demarcation. From the entries Exhibits P7/A, P7/B, P7, P9/A arid P/9, incorporated in the Kargujari Books, it is clear that the demarcation was carried out by Sita Ram, Field Kanungo from 23.5.1977 to 26.5.1977 and Faquir Chand respondent only verified the said demarcation given by the said Kanungo. Thus, the allegation of the prosecution that the demarcation was given by Faquir Chand respondent is disproved by the documentary evidence. 20. Thus, the allegation of the prosecution that the demarcation was given by Faquir Chand respondent is disproved by the documentary evidence. 20. It is pertinent to mention here that Sita Ram Field Kanungo who gave demarcation is neither an accused in this case nor is there any allegation made against him that he was a party to the alleged conspiracy. It means that the prosecution was satisfied with the demarcation given by Sita Ram, Field Kanungo which was later on verified by Faquir Chand respondents. 21. As regards the complicity of respondent R.P. Jaswal in the alleged marking of 95 trees on the government land and 194 trees on private land other than that in respect of which marking had been permitted, suffice it to say that he acted in marking the trees not on hit own knowledge but on the result of the demarcation carried out by Sita Ram, Field Kanungo. There is nothing on record to suggest that respondent R.P. Jaswal, was aware of or in the know of the actual situation of parcels of the private land on which the marking was to be done or the government land on which the marking was alleged to have been done Further there is nothing on the record to show that respondent R.P. Jaswal had ever visited the area in question prior to the marking of the trees or had any occasion to know the extent of the area and the boundaries of the government land on which 93 trees were alleged to have been marked. In view of the above stated position, it cannot be said that respondent R.P. Jaswal at the time of marking of the trees knew that 93 trees the stumps of which had already been found on the Government land during the investigation of the case, stood on the government land. 22. In the absence of basic facts which are required to be proved on record by the prosecution and having not done so, the prosecution has failed to lead cogent, convincing and reliable evidence to enable the Court to form a definite opinion that the respondents are liable for the commission of the alleged offences. The Special Judge has rightly appreciated the evidence brought on record and we do not find any ground to interfere with the reasoning and on conclusion of the learned Special Judge. 23. The Special Judge has rightly appreciated the evidence brought on record and we do not find any ground to interfere with the reasoning and on conclusion of the learned Special Judge. 23. No other point was urged by learned counsel on both sides. 24. In the result, we uphold the decision of the learned Special Judge and dismiss the Criminal Appeal No.54 of 1985. 25. " Dealing with appeal preferred by Lakhi Ram appellant herein, the learned Special Judge took notice of the provisions of Section 69 of the Indian Forest Act, which provides that whenever a question is raised in any judicial proceedings whether the forest produce with respect to which an offence is alleged to have been committed belongs to the Government or some private person, the presumption would be in favour of the Government. No doubt this presumption is rebutable but no evidence has been led by Lakhi Run (appellant). The Special Judge acquitted him on the ground that the prosecution has failed to bring home the charge by sufficient evidence but that will not be sufficient ipso facto to rebut the presumption required to be drawn under Section 69 of the Act. In order to claim the seized timber of 95 trees or sale proceeds thereof, it was necessary for the appellant to have brought on record sufficient material for rebutting the presumption which is our opinion is lacking in the instant case. Moreover, in the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. also, the appellant has not laid am Claim to the seized timber or a sum of Rs.22,177.78 paise as sale price of the trees. 26. In view of this, we do not find any merit in this appeal and as such Criminal Appeal No 2 of 1985 is also dismissed. Bail bonds are discharged. -