JUDGMENT This is an appeal against the judgment dated 30.6.1995 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bilaspur whereby the accused-respondents(hereinafter referred to as the accused) have been acquitted of the accusations under Sections 32 read with with Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that PW-5 Sukh Ram, the then forest guard of Jhandhor Beat was on patrol duty in Dehan Jungle on 18.2.1990 at about 9 p.m. when he saw the accused felling the Khair trees in the said forest. When he was making inquiries from the accused, Bachhu Ram and Amar Chand also came there. They were also joined in the process of inquiry by PW-5. The Khair trees, numbering 10, were found to have been felled and cut with the help of saw and axe and were converted into 14 logs. The accused admitted the commission of the offence and a damage report Ex.PW-3/A was prepared by the said forest guard. He further prepared a confessional statement Ex.PW-5/A which was signed by accused Hazarra Singh and Mangal Singh but accused Arjun Singh refused to sign the same. Such statement was signed by Amar Chand and thumb marked by Bachu Ram. The timber was taken in possession by the forest guard vide seizure memo Ex.PW-5/A. PW-3 Ram Chand, Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat, was also called on the spot. Statements of Ram Chand, Amar Chand and Bachu Ram were recorded and attested by the Block Officer PW-6 Sounu Ram. Further statements of Mangal Singh and Hazarra accused were recorded by the Block Officer which are Exs. PW-3/E and Ex. PW-3/F whereby the said accused had agreed to pay the compensation. Nakal Aks Shajra Kishtwar about the place from where the trees were felled was got prepared by the forest officials from PW-1 Shankar Singh which is Ex.PW-1/A and a copy of jamabandi of the concerned land from which the trees were felled Ex. PW-1/B was also obtained. Copies of Notification under Sections 29 and 30 of the Indian Forest Act have also been placed on record which are Ex.PW-2/A and Ex.PW-2/B. Since the accused failed to pay the compensation, the concerned Range Officer PW-4 Bali Ram prepared complaint Ex.PW-4/B and submitted it to the concerned Court. PW-1/B was also obtained. Copies of Notification under Sections 29 and 30 of the Indian Forest Act have also been placed on record which are Ex.PW-2/A and Ex.PW-2/B. Since the accused failed to pay the compensation, the concerned Range Officer PW-4 Bali Ram prepared complaint Ex.PW-4/B and submitted it to the concerned Court. The accused were tried for the accusations under Sections 32 and 33 of the Indian Forest Act by the learned trial Magistrate who acquitted them as aforesaid. Hence the present appeal. 3. I have heard the learned Addl. Advocate General and the learned Counsel for the accused and have also gone through the records. 4. In view of the statement of PW-1 Shankar Singh Patwari read and with copy of Aks Sajra Kishtwar which is Ex.PW-1/A, copy of Jamabandi Ex.PW-1/B, copies of Notifications Exs.PW-2/A and PW-2/B, it is firmly established that sometimes on or before 18.2.1990, ten Khair trees were illicitely felled and converted into logs in Dehan U.F., therefore, the only question which requires determination in this appeal is whether the said trees were felled by the accused or by someone else. 5. To prove that the trees were felled and converted into logs by the accused, the prosecution has examined PW-3 Ram Chand, PW-5 Sukh Ram and PW-6 Sounu Ram. It was PW-5 Sukh Ram who is alleged to have detected the commission of the offence and found the accused felling and cutting the trees. The statement of said PW-5, however, does not inspire confidence. He has stated that on 18.2.1990 at about 8.00 p.m. he was on patrol duty in Jungle Dehan when he found the accused person cutting the Khair trees. Subsequently, he has stated that it was at 9.00 p.m. that he found the accused person felling the trees in the Jungle. There is no explanation as to how at 9.00 p.m. in the night in the month of February he was patrolling the forest, how could he recognize the accused in the darkness and how he managed to count the stumps of the fell trees and the logs in the darkness of the night. It is also not probable that in the Jungle at the place and time when he allegedly detected the offenders he could write the damage report and even measure the size of the logs. It is also not probable that in the Jungle at the place and time when he allegedly detected the offenders he could write the damage report and even measure the size of the logs. It is not his case that the damage report was subsequently prepared during the day light or at a place where there was sufficient light or the stumps and the logs were counted on the next morning or that the logs were measured at a subsequent stage in the day light. Thus, his statement which is the basis of the prosecution case is untrustworthy and unreliable. 6. What further makes the case of the prosecution improbable is the fact that PW-5 Sukh Ram claims to have taken one axe and one saw in possession on the spot. However, in the damage report Ex.PW-3/A there is no reference that any weapon of offence was taken in possession by him on the spot. The allegedly seized Kulhara and Ara had never been produced in the Court to corroborate the version of this witness. 7. PW-3 Ram Chand in his examination-in-chief supports the version of PW-5 Sukh Ram to the extent that he was taken to the spot by the Forest Guard and the damage report Ex.PW-3/A was prepared and the Khair wood was taken in possession vide memo at the back of Ex.PW-3/A by the Forest Guard in his presence. He has denied recording of the statement of any witness by PW Sounu Ram, Block Officer. He has, however, admitted his signatures on his own statement Ex.PW-3/B and has alsoadmitted the making of statement Ex.PW-3/C by Amar Chand and statement Ex.PW-3/D by Bachnu Ram. He has further stated that accused Mangal Singh had agreed to pay the compensation, however, accused Hazara Singh had refused to pay any compensation. However, in the cross-examination he has stated that the papers were prepared on 19.2.1990 at about 10.00 a.m. and that when he had gone to the spot none of the accused was present there. He has further stated that Amar Chand and Bachnu aforesaid had met him after 4 or 5 days of his visiting the spot. He has denied having met the Block Officer, Bachnu Ram and Amar Chand on 20.2.1990 when the aforesaid statements purport to have been recorded. He has further stated that Amar Chand and Bachnu aforesaid had met him after 4 or 5 days of his visiting the spot. He has denied having met the Block Officer, Bachnu Ram and Amar Chand on 20.2.1990 when the aforesaid statements purport to have been recorded. Finally he has stated that the aforesaid persons had not made any statement in his presence nor they have agreed to make any payment. The statement of this witness who has come out with different version at different stages is unreliable. It is moreso when in his alleged statement Ex.PW-3/B he had earlier stated that the accused were apprehended in his presence on the spot during the night and that two saws were taken in possession by the Forest Guard from the accused. It is not the case of PW-5 Sukh Ram that the accused were apprehended in presence of this witness, who seems to be a convenient person for the Forest Officers to make such statements as and when desired. It appears that the documents attested by him were prepared much after the occurrence giving it the colour as if the accused were apprehended in his presence when Bachnu Ram and Amar Chand were also present which is not even the case of the prosecution itself. 8. As and when timber is seized by the Forest Officers, it is marked with the relevant hammer. It is admitted case that the Khair wood allegedly seized in this case was not hammer marked by the Forest Guard, who allegedly seized it nor it is so marked by the Block Officer to whom it is stated to have been handed over at a later stage. In fact there is no cogent and reliable evidence to show that logs of Khair wood were seized on the spot. As already stated the counting and measurement of the logs could not have been carried out at 9.00 p.m. in the night, What emerges from the statement of PW-5 Sukh Ram is that on 19.2.1990 at 10.00 a.m. he informed Block Officer Sounu Ram about the occurrence and at that time the seized Khair wood was lying in his quarter. There is no evidence as to how the Khair wood was transported from the spot to the quarter of this witness during night. There is no evidence as to how the Khair wood was transported from the spot to the quarter of this witness during night. He further goes on to admit that the Khair wood taken in possession in this case remained lying in his quarter for three or four months. He has further admitted that the Khair wood seized in other cases also remained lying in his quarter, whereas according to PW-6 Sounu Ram when he conducted inquiry into the matter, Khair wood was lying in the forest which he took in possession and handed over to PW-5 Sukh Ram. He has contradicted himself when he has further stated that the Khair wood remained lying on the spot for two or three days and thereafter he brought it to his own quarter. Thus, what becomes probable is that the Forest Officers are trying to justify the damage caused in the forest within their jurisdiction felling often Khair trees by falsely involving the accused in the case, whereas no Khair wood appears to have been recovered from the spot. This conclusion is further strengthened by the fact that one of the seized log has been produced in the Court and has been exhibited as Ex.P-1. On measurement this log was found 37" into 1 6" and it has been numbered as g. According to PW-6 Sounu Ram the dimensions of allegedly seized log No.9 as mentioned in the damage report was 3.2 ft. into 2.1 ft. Evidently this dimension is not of Ex.P-1. For removal of any doubt I have perused the details of the seized logs as given in Suprdarinama Ex.PW-5/B. None of the logs allegedly seized is of the size of Ex.P-1. Evidently Ex.P-1 is not one of the logs of the alleged seized Khair wood and is a substitute for the case property in this case. 9. The most material witness in the case were Bachu Ram and Amar Chand. None of them has been produced by the prosecution nor any reason has been assigned for their non-production as witnesses. Therefore, it will be legitimate to draw the inference against the prosecution version that in case the aforesaid two witnesses would have been produced and examined they would not have supported the prosecution version. 10. None of them has been produced by the prosecution nor any reason has been assigned for their non-production as witnesses. Therefore, it will be legitimate to draw the inference against the prosecution version that in case the aforesaid two witnesses would have been produced and examined they would not have supported the prosecution version. 10. The learned trial Magistrate has looked into all these material aspects of the case and has rightly come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to produce cogent and reliable evidence against the accused person in order to hold them guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 32 and 33 of the Indian Forest Act, therefore, the impugned order acquitting the accused of the accusation against them does not call for any interference by this Court. 11. The appeal therefore merits dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. The bail bonds furnished by the accused are discharged. Appeal dismissed.