JUDGMENT Surjit Singh, Judge State has filed this appeal, challenging the judgment dated 10.1.2001, of learned Special Judge, whereby respondents Khushal Chand and others, who were tried for offences, under Sections 120-B, 379, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, Section 11 of H.P. Taxation on Certain Goods Carried by Road Act, 1976 and Rule 18/20 of the H.P. Forest Produce Transit (Land Route) Rules, 1978, have been acquitted. 2. Case of the prosecution, as per evidence on record, is like this. Respondent Khushal Chand, who is resident of village Barthata, was granted 11 bighas 9 biswas land, shown by Khasra No. 144/1/5, in village Barthata, Tehsil, Jubbal, with 14 timber trees of Kail species, standing thereon, under Nautor Rules, in the year 1976. Soon after the sanctioning of Nautor, he applied for exchange of land granted to him, with land bearing Khasra No. 144/1/1 belonging to the State of H.P. Range Officer of Forest Department, namely respondent No. 2 Raghubir Chand, who is now dead, made a report that there stood 44 Kail and Fur trees on the land, which respondent Khushal Chand wanted to get in exchange, and forwarded the case to the D.F.O. Ultimately, the matter went to the Deputy Commissioner, Shimla, who disallowed exchange of Khasra No. 144/1/1, on account of a large number of trees standing on that land and sent the case to the Tehsildar. 3. Khushal Chand then made change in the application for exchange, i.e. Ex.PW-43/B. Khasra number was changed from 144/1/1 to 144/1/4, by overwriting the last digit ‘1’. Tehsildar, Jubbal as also Raghubir Chand, Range Officer reported that there stood only 11 trees on khasra No. 144/1/4, which respondent Khushal Chand sought in exchange, while there stood 14 trees on the land, which he had offered to give in exchange. Though, report of the Tehsildar, which we find in the file Ex.PW-32/C, has not been assigned any specific exhibit and is also not dated, report, which was submitted by the Range Officer, in respect of Khasra No. 144/1/4, is Ex.PW-42/C, in the same file, i.e. Ex. PW-32/C. Range Officer also reported that there were only 11 trees on land, bearing khasra No. 144/1/4 and on the land, initially allotted to respondent Khushal Chand, there stood 14 trees. PW-32/C. Range Officer also reported that there were only 11 trees on land, bearing khasra No. 144/1/4 and on the land, initially allotted to respondent Khushal Chand, there stood 14 trees. It may be noticed that though description of the land was changed in the application, Ex.PW-43/B, as also the aforesaid report of the Tehsildar and that of the Revenue Officer, the Tatima, Ex.PW-43/A, showing the land that was to be given in exchange, remained the same, except that Khasra number of the land, which was initially 144/1/1 was changed to 144/1/4, by overwriting the last digit ‘1’. That spot map is Ex.PW-43/1. The order of exchange was passed on 30.3.1977 and mutation was attested in May, 1977. 4. About 7 months after the aforesaid exchange, respondent Khushal Chand made an application to the D.F.O., Rohru for demarcation of the land which had been allotted to him in exchange, i.e. land bearing Khasra No. 144/1/4. Though, it was not specifically mentioned in the application that demarcation was required for the purpose of felling trees standing on that land, the very fact that the application was addressed to the Forest Department, indicates that purpose was to seek permission to fell the trees. That application was marked by the D.F.O. to the Range Officer to get the land demarcated and also to mark the trees standing thereon. Demarcation was carried out by Chet Ram, Field Kanungo, in the presence of Shri Bhagat Chand Negi, Block Officer on 19.3.1980. On the basis of that demarcation, 35 trees of Kail and 5 trees of Rai (Fur) were marked on Khasra No. 144/1/4, though in the year 1978, as per aforesaid report of the Tehsildar and the Range Officer, there stood only 11 trees of Kail and Fur on that land. 5. D.F.O., Rohru then passed an order, granting permission to fell 40 trees, which were reported to be standing on Khasra No. 144/1/4. Trees were felled and converted into timber. Khushal Chand then made an application, seeking permission to export the timber. He intimated that the trees had yielded 1293.71 cubic feet of timber, consisting of 601 scants. Permit, bearing No. 44/81-82, dated 5.6.1981, Ex.PW-16/A was issued. Trees were felled and converted into timber. Khushal Chand then made an application, seeking permission to export the timber. He intimated that the trees had yielded 1293.71 cubic feet of timber, consisting of 601 scants. Permit, bearing No. 44/81-82, dated 5.6.1981, Ex.PW-16/A was issued. After exporting 547 scants, Khushal Chand made an application for extension of time, stipulated in the permit, to export the remaining timber, which he stated to consist of 292 scants, though, after having exported 547 scants out of permitted quantity of 601, only 54 scants were supposed to be in balance. Extension was granted, but respondent did not export any timber within the extended period. He then applied for fresh permit for exporting 292 scants. Permit No. 109 of 82-83, Ex.PW-15/M was issued. Against this permit, respondent Khushal Chand exported 292 scants through Jaswant Nagar Forest Check Post and exported 296 scants by rail, from Dharampur railway station. 6. Respondent Chet Ram, who was Incharge of Forest Check Post, Kharapathar is alleged to have allowed export of 121 scants, in addition to the export of 422 scants against original Permit No. 44 of 81-82, Ex.PW-16/A, by not entering those 121 scants in the register, maintained at the aforesaid check post. According to the prosecution, those 121 scants were carried on 17.7.1981, in truck Nos. HPS2283 and HPS-4547, against challans Ex.PW-16/C and Ex.PW-16/D. 7. Prosecution alleged that there was a conspiracy amongst respondents Khushal Chand, Raghubir Chand, Range Officer, now dead, Chet Ram, Incharge, Forest Check Post, Kharapathar, Amrit Singh, M.L.Joshi and Harbans Lal, Railway Station Masters/ Assistant Station Masters, for felling trees on government land and also to export more timber than permitted against export permits, issued by the D.F.O. and it was in prosecution of the aforesaid conspiracy that the aforesaid acts of wrong reporting, excess export of timber etc. were committed. 8. On the completion of investigation and on receipt of sanction to prosecute those of the accused, who are government servant, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. along with relevant papers, was filed in the Court of Special Judge, who, after complying with the requirement of Section 207 Cr.P.C., charged the respondents under the aforesaid penal provisions of IPC, Prevention of Corruption Act, Excise Act and H.P. Forest Produce Transit (Land Route) Rules, 1978. Respondents denied that there was any conspiracy, or any crime had been committed. Respondents denied that there was any conspiracy, or any crime had been committed. Learned trial Court concluded that the case of the prosecution did not stand established beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted all the respondents. 9. We have heard learned Deputy Advocate General, representing the appellant-State as also learned counsel for the respondents and reappraised the entire evidence. 10. We may state, at the very outset that learned Special Judge has not framed the charge properly. No count of the charge is happily worded. However, that should not be a ground for not deciding the appeal and remanding the case to the trial Court, because we find that at least, charge of conspiracy contains sufficient details, to enable the respondents to understand on what allegations, they were going to face the trial. 11. It is not in dispute and is also proved beyond reasonable doubt, that respondent Khushal Chand, initially applied for grant of nautor of 11 bighas 9 biswas area, forming part of Khasra No. 144, which was depicted by min No. 144/1/5. On this piece of land, there stood only 11 timber trees. Nautor was sanctioned in his favour. Soon thereafter, respondent Khushal Chand applied for allotment of another piece of land, which was shown by min No. 144/1/1, in exchange for the piece of land, earlier allotted to him under nautor, i.e. khasra No. 144/1/5. On that piece of land, 44 trees were reported to exist. Matter was sent by the Deputy Commissioner to the Tehsildar. 12. Respondent Khushal Chand then made a change in the application for exchange, by overwriting last digit ‘1’ of khasra No. 144/1/1 so as to make it ‘4’. Reports were submitted by the Tehsildar and deceased respondent Raghubir Chand that on khasra No. 144/1/4, i.e. the khasra number, changed in his application by respondent Khushal Chand by overwriting, there stood only 11 trees. Because of this recommendation, exchange was allowed vide order, dated 30.3.1977, Ex.PW-62/A, by the Deputy Commissioner. Mutation was attested in May, 1977. 13. In January, 1978, respondent Khushal Chand submitted application Ex.PW-43/B for demarcation of his land. The application was submitted to D.F.O., as a prelude to making another application seeking permission to fell the trees, which were to be found and marked on the land. Land, in respect of which demarcation was sought, was stated to bear Khasra No. 144/1/4. 13. In January, 1978, respondent Khushal Chand submitted application Ex.PW-43/B for demarcation of his land. The application was submitted to D.F.O., as a prelude to making another application seeking permission to fell the trees, which were to be found and marked on the land. Land, in respect of which demarcation was sought, was stated to bear Khasra No. 144/1/4. Application was marked to the Range Officer, who, in turn, marked it to the Block Officer and the latter approached Chet Ram, Field Kanungo, to give demarcation. On demarcation, 40 trees were marked on land, bearing khasra No. 144/1/4, which were later on permitted to be felled by the Forest Department. 14. Respondent Khushal Chand was questioned about the aforesaid facts, which are duly proved, when being examined, under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He did not offer any explanation, but expressed ignorance, even about the facts of his having applied for exchange and having submitted application for marking of trees and permission to fell the trees. That suggests that he has no explanation to offer. 15. From the above stated position, it is abundantly clear, that respondent Khushal Chand knew full well that there stood more than 11 trees on khasra No. 144/1/4, which he got in exchange and that the reports made by the Tehsildar and the Range Officer that there stood only 11 trees on that land, were incorrect. Had it not been so, and had he been acting in good faith, he would have, at once, pointed out that the land which was allotted to him, had only 11 timber trees, standing thereon and would not have sought permission to fell 40 trees, which were marked. 16. The fact that wrong reports were submitted by the Range Officer, namely deceased respondent Raghubir Chand and the Tehsildar, also establish beyond reasonable doubt, that there was a conspiracy amongst Khushal Chand and the above named two officials from Revenue Department and Forest Department. 16. The fact that wrong reports were submitted by the Range Officer, namely deceased respondent Raghubir Chand and the Tehsildar, also establish beyond reasonable doubt, that there was a conspiracy amongst Khushal Chand and the above named two officials from Revenue Department and Forest Department. The said conspiracy is further established by the fact that the very application Ex.PW-43/B, which was initially moved for seeking allotment of Khasra No. 144/1/1, in exchange for originally allotted khasra No. 144/1/5, was changed into an application for allotment of khasra No. 144/1/4 in exchange, by overwriting the last digit ‘1’ and making it to read ‘4’ and the Tatima Ex.PW-43/A, which was submitted with the application for seeking in exchange khasra No. 144/1/1, also remained the same and in the middle of the diagram, the number, which was initially written as 144/1/1, was changed to 144/1/4, by overwriting, which means, area of the land sought in exchange, remained the same and the change in the application and Tatima with regard to the Khasra Number was only cosmetic and had been made to hoodwink the Divisional Forest Officer and the Deputy Commissioner, who had objected to the exchange earlier, on account of the report that there stood 44 trees on the land. 17. Learned trial Court has totally ignored this vital evidence, while passing the judgment of acquittal. We are of the considered view, that this evidence proves to the hilt, the charge of conspiracy between Khushal Chand and deceased respondent Raghubir Chand, for giving in exchange to Khushal Chand a piece of land, with large number of timber trees, which, but for the wrong reports of the Tehsildar and deceased respondent Raghubir Chand, would not have been given, as the law did not permit giving in exchange of a piece of land, belonging to the government, with a large number of trees standing on it. 18. We may observe at this stage, that though the Tehsildar, who gave his own report that there were only 11 trees on khasra No. 144/1/4 and also allowed the same Tatima Ex.PW-43/A, which was of khasra No. 144/1/1, to be used as Tatima of khasra No. 144/1/4, to hoodwink the Deputy Commissioner, was apparently a party to the aforesaid conspiracy, but the investigating agency, for the reasons best known to it, did not array him as an accused. The intention of the concerned officers of the investigating agency, to let him off the hook, is further manifest from the fact that he was not cited even as a witness of the prosecution, so that the Court might remain in dark, with regard to the criminal role played by him. 19. As regards the allegation that Chet Ram, Forest Guard allowed export of 121 scants of timber against challans Exts. PW-16/C and PW-16/D, we find that the evidence on record is insufficient. Accusation is that he did not make entry in the relevant register about the challans Exts. PW-16/C and PW-16/D. Relevant register was not produced during trial and, therefore, it cannot be said that there was no entry in the register. It is also the case of the prosecution that timber, which was carried against these two challans, was part of the timber, permitted to be exported vide permit No. 44 of 81-82, Ex.PW-16/A. Permit number is not mentioned on challan Ex. PW-16/C. May be that the timber pertained to some other export permit. 20. Yet another allegation of the prosecution is that there was a conspiracy between respondent Khushal Chand and the Railway Station Masters/ Assistant Station Masters of Summerhill and Dharampur Railway Stations, for export of more timber, against permits Nos. 44 of 81-82 and 109 of 82-83, than permitted under those permits. It is true that the R.Rs. (Railway Receipts) Exts. PW/3/A-1, PW-3/A-2, PW-3/A-3, PW-60/A-22 and PW-60/A-15, issued from Summerhill Railway Station, do suggest that 716 scants were loaded in the wagons at Railway Station, Summerhill, with respondent Khushal Chand as consignor, yet at least 291 scants out of these 716 scants, do not stand connected with export permit No. 44 of 81-82, or renewed export permit No. 109 of 82-83, Ex.PW-15/M. 21. Also, it has come in prosecution’s own evidence that railway authorities were under obligation to book the timber and to dispatch it to the destination disclosed by the consignor, unless it had been brought to their notice that without the production of export permit, booking and dispatch was illegal. Also, it has come in prosecution’s own evidence that railway authorities were under obligation to book the timber and to dispatch it to the destination disclosed by the consignor, unless it had been brought to their notice that without the production of export permit, booking and dispatch was illegal. PW-2 K.C.Nandwani, who initially investigated the case in his capacity as investigating Inspector of the railways, testified that he sought some clarification from the Chief Conservator of Forests and it was then that he came to know that timber could not be transported by railways, unless export permit was endorsed to the concerned railway stations. He admitted that no such instructions had ever been circulated to the accused Railway Station Masters/ Assistant Station Masters and, therefore, they were not supposed to be knowing that timber could not be transported without export permit being produced, or shown at the time of booking. It is not the case of the prosecution, that Railway Station Masters/ Assistant Station Masters, who have been made accused in this case, were knowing that the quantity of timber or the number of scants of timber, brought to the railway stations for transportation, were in excess of the quantity or the number, specified in the export permit. Thus, second conspiracy between respondent Khushal Chand, on one side, and the Railway Station Masters/Asstt. Station Masters on the other, cannot be said to have been proved. 22. As a result of the above discussed position, appeal of the State is partly accepted and the judgment of the trial Court, so far as it pertains to acquittal of respondent Khushal Chand, is set aside and the said respondent is convicted of offence, under Section 120-B, read with Section 420 IPC and Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Raghubir Chand respondent has died and so, the appeal as against him, abates. 23. So far as the other respondents are concerned, judgment of the trial Court, acquitting them, is upheld and the appeal of the State, as against them, is dismissed. 24. We have noticed hereinabove, that Tehsildar, Jubbal was as much responsible for false reporting, as deceased respondent Raghubir Chand, that there stood only 11 trees on the land, bearing khasra No. 144/1/4, which respondent Khushal Chand had sought in exchange for khasra No. 144/1/5. 24. We have noticed hereinabove, that Tehsildar, Jubbal was as much responsible for false reporting, as deceased respondent Raghubir Chand, that there stood only 11 trees on the land, bearing khasra No. 144/1/4, which respondent Khushal Chand had sought in exchange for khasra No. 144/1/5. Rather, he appears to have played greater role than deceased respondent Raghubir Chand, because he allowed the application for exchange as also the Tatima, to be tampered with. At this belated stage, it may not be appropriate to order the prosecution of said Tehsildar, but we direct the Principal Secretary (Revenue) to the Government of H.P. to take appropriate departmental action against him. We direct that the Tehsildar be charge sheeted for major penalty and the proceedings be concluded within six months, from today. 25. Deputy Advocate General, Shri Vikas Rathore, shall personally ensure that a copy of this judgment is made available to the Principal Secretary (Revenue) to the Government of H.P., by 18.3.2011. Court Master of the Court is directed to make available an authenticated copy of this judgment to the said Deputy Advocate General, by tomorrow evening, positively. 26. We also direct the Director General of Police to take departmental action against the investigating officer, who did not make the said Tehsildar an accused in the case, despite there being more incriminating evidence against him, than that was collected against deceased respondent Raghubir Chand, Range Officer. 27. Respondent Khushal Chand be produced on 18.4.2011, for being heard on the question of quantum of sentence.