JUDGMENT By Court.-Heard learned counsel for the appellant-State and learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal dated 31.1.2001 passed by Shri Jai Nandan Sharma, 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Chatra in Sessions Trial No. 153 of 1987 acquitting the accused respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 from the charges levelled against them under Sections 379, 411, 413, 414 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant-State that the evidence of D.F.O., Chatra (P.W. 4) was only considered by the trial court, and as such, the order is bad in law and fit to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the main prosecution case has been committed at Lawalong by the trial court and the court has found that the institution of the case itself was bad and prosecution has failed to prove that any theft was' committed by the accused persons, and as such, the judgment of acquittal requires no interference by this Court. 5. After hearing both the parties and after going through the records, I find that the prosecution case was started on the basis of a F.I.R. given by Kuldlp Manjhi, Range Officer posted' at Lawalong Range with regard to getting and removing of 'Khair trees' from the protected forest and the informant learnt that these accused persons namely Mohan Lal Khandelwal, Bhola Shankar Khandelwal and Vijay Kumar Khandelwal have manufactured 'Katha' from the aforesaid 'Khair trees' and kept them in a 'godown' in the house of accused no. 1, Mohan Lal Khandelwal. The police, on a request made by the informant, seized the kept 'Katha' and prepared a seizure list, on the basis of which, this case was started. 6. It appears that during trial the accused claimed that they are Class-I Government contractors and they had purchased the Coupe of 'Khair trees' as per the contract of the Forest Department. They had prepared 'Katha' and taken them to their god owns. The prosecution himself has filed Exts. 6 to 9 i.e. the permit books containing permit Nos. 07360 to 07650 and Permit Nos. 081751 to 081800 and Permit No. 28550 to Permit No. 285550 and Permit Nos. They had prepared 'Katha' and taken them to their god owns. The prosecution himself has filed Exts. 6 to 9 i.e. the permit books containing permit Nos. 07360 to 07650 and Permit Nos. 081751 to 081800 and Permit No. 28550 to Permit No. 285550 and Permit Nos. 289151 to 289200 to prove that these permits were granted to the accused for removing the 'Khair trees' and they were also permitted to take prepared 'Katha' from 'god owns'. They also proved Ext.-11, permission granted by the Forest Department. The defence relied on all the documents produced by the prosecution and the learned trial court, after considering all the permits and relying on the return filed by the accused contractors, which was proved as Ext.-G dated 7.11.1983, which shows that 61915 Katha pieces were transported on the basis of Forest Department, permitted the Nos. 2855101 to 2855105 and 2855108. The defence also proved the letter No. 1942 dated 3.5.1983 as Ext.-11 to show that all these documents were handed over to Sri R.D. Subarno on 12.8.1984 to show that Katha recovered were legal and they were kept in the 'godown' with the permission of the Forest Department. 7. The court has found that since the Katha recovered was from trees under D.F.O., Chatra, •the case should have been lodged by the D.F.O., Chatra and the initiation of the case on the F.I.R. filed by P.W. 3, Kuldip Manjhi, who is the Range Officer at Lowalong Range was bad in law and the case was initiated with ulterior motive only to harass the accused persons. 8. In that view of the matter, I find that the trial court, after considering all the evidences available on the record and the documents, found that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubts. 9. As discussed above, I find nothing to disagree with the impugned order of trial court. I find no merit in this Government Appeal, accordingly, the same is dismissed.