Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1431 (HP)

Bahadur Singh Negi v. State of H. P.

2011-03-17

SURJIT SINGH

body2011
JUDGEMENT Surjit Singh, Judge(Oral) 1. These three appeals, one by Bahadur Singh Negi, one by Balbir Singh Bastu and one by Jia Lal Bastu, are being disposed of by a common judgment, as in all of them, same judgment, i.e. judgment dated 19th April, 2002 of learned Special Judge (Forests) has been challenged. By this judgment, all the appellants have been convicted of offences, under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 and Rule 20 of the H.P. Forest Produce Transit (Land Route) Rules, 1978, and sentenced as follows: Sr.No. Offence Punishment1. 120-B IPC 420 IPC Rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of ‘1,000/-, in default of payment of fine simple imprisonment for three months. Rigorous imprisonment for 467 IPC three years and fine of ‘3,000/-, in default of payment of fine simple imprisonment for six months. Rigorous imprisonment for two 468 IPC years and fine of ‘2,000/-, in default of payment of fine simple imprisonment for four months. Rigorous imprisonment for 471 IPC three years and fine of ‘3,000/-, in default of payment of fine simple imprisonment for six months. Rigorous imprisonment for Rule 20 of the H.P. three years and fine of ‘3,000/-, in default of payment of fine simple imprisonment for six months. Rigorous imprisonment for six Forest Produce Transit(Land Route) Rules, 1978 months and fine of ‘2,500/-, in default of payment of fine simple imprisonment for one month. Appellants, alongwith Railway Agent Kahan Chand and three Station Masters/Assistant Station Masters, namely Vinod Kumar, Gurcharan Singh and Balram Prasad, were tried for offences, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1945, and Rules 11/20 and 12/20 of the H.P. Forest Produce Transit (Land Route) Rules, 1978. Case of the prosecution was that the three appellants, who are petty forest lessees and deal in sale of timber, purchased certain trees, standing on private land of three persons, falling under the area of Divisional Forest Officer, Kotgarh. Appellant Bahadur Singh Negi, after obtaining permission from the Divisional Forest Officer, felled the trees, marked on private land by the forest officials, after obtaining demarcation from revenue officials. 2.An application was submitted by appellant Bahadur Singh Negi to the Divisional Forest Officer, seeking issuance of export permit. In the application, it was stated that the felled trees had yielded 4663.24 cubic feet of timber, consisting of 2167 scants. Export permit Ex. 2.An application was submitted by appellant Bahadur Singh Negi to the Divisional Forest Officer, seeking issuance of export permit. In the application, it was stated that the felled trees had yielded 4663.24 cubic feet of timber, consisting of 2167 scants. Export permit Ex. PW-50/C was issued. Number of the permit was 12/82-83. During investigation of some other case, it came to light that against 2167 scants permitted to be exported, 2739 scants had been exported. Matter was investigated. 933 scants were alleged to have been exported by road from the site to Jagadhari against challans Ex. PW-5/A-1 to Ex. PW-5/A-7 and 1806 scants were alleged to have been exported by train against Railway Receipts Ex. PW-6/A-1 to Ex. PW-6/A-11. It was alleged that Railway employees, working as Station Masters and Assistant Station Masters, at Shoghi Railway Station, had connived with the present appellants to export more timber than permitted under export permit Ex. PW-50/C. 3.Therefore, those employees were also made co-accused with the present appellants. There were some other allegations also that illicit felling of trees had taken place from Government land, but trial Court gave the finding that such allegations did not stand proved and the State has not filed any appeal challenging such finding. Appellants and the Railway employees were charged under the aforesaid penal provisions of law by the Special Judge and on their pleading not guilty, they were tried for the said offences. Prosecution examined a large number of witnesses, besides proving several documents to substantiate its charge. Appellants, in their examination, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, denied their involvement. Appellant Bahadur Singh Negi took the plea that timber of another export permit had been counted by the Investigating Officer, while working out the timber exported against permit No.12/82-83, Ex. PW-50/C. Other two appellants pleaded that they had nothing to do with the export of timber, under the permit, in question. 4.Trial Court, at the end of trial, held that there was no conspiracy between the appellants and the Railway employees and, therefore, acquitted the Railway employees. As regards the appellants, trial Court held that they were guilty of exporting more timber than permitted, under permit Ex. PW-50/C and that this was done pursuant to a criminal conspiracy among them. 4.Trial Court, at the end of trial, held that there was no conspiracy between the appellants and the Railway employees and, therefore, acquitted the Railway employees. As regards the appellants, trial Court held that they were guilty of exporting more timber than permitted, under permit Ex. PW-50/C and that this was done pursuant to a criminal conspiracy among them. Trial Court also held them guilty of forgery and cheating, on account of their allegedly having forged Account Opening papers, by falsely giving the name of the father of appellants Balbir Singh Bastu and Jia Lal Bastu as the name of the father of appellant Bahadur Singh Negi and also by signing the Account Opening form by appellant Balbir Singh, in place of appellant Bahadur Singh Negi. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants as also learned Deputy Advocate General and gone through the record. Allegation of the prosecution that more timber than permitted was exported against permit Ex. PW-50/C stands proved, beyond reasonable doubt. 933 scants of timber were carried by Trucks from the starting point to Yamunanagar against goods receipts Ex. PW-5/A-1 to Ex. PW-5/A-7. It is not only the aforesaid goods receipts, which prove the allegation, but also entries in the Account Books, maintained by the consignees. A partner of the consignee firm, namely PW-4 Surinder Kumar appeared and proved copies of entries in the books maintained by the firm. 5.The documents are Ex. PW-4/A and Ex. PW-4/B. The documents, particularly Ex. PW-4/B, prove that the timber dispatched against GRs Ex. PW-5/A-1 to Ex. PW-5/A-7, through Trucks, had been received by the firm. In this document numbers of GRs, Truck numbers, number of scants, are given and match with the numbers mentioned in Ex. PW-5/A-1 to Ex. PW-5/A-7. Also, it stands established that 1806 scants were sent to consignees, outside the State of Himachal Pradesh, by Rail from Railway Station, Shoghi, against Railway Receipts Ex. PW-6/A-1 to Ex. PW-6/A-11. The number of scants mentioned in these Railway Receipts is the same, as mentioned in the forwarding notes, against which the timber was booked with the Railways. Those forwarding notes are Ex. PW-12/B, Ex.PW-12/D, Ex. PW-12/F, Ex. PW-17/B-2, Ex. PW-17/B-4, Ex. PW-17/B-6, Ex. PW-17/B-8, Ex. PW-17/B-10, Ex. PW-17/B-12, Ex. PW-17/B-14, Ex. PW-17/B-16 and Ex. PW-17/B-18. Account Books entries (copies Ex. PW-4/A and Ex. PW-4/B) proved by PW-4 Surinder Kumar also prove the fact. In Ex. Those forwarding notes are Ex. PW-12/B, Ex.PW-12/D, Ex. PW-12/F, Ex. PW-17/B-2, Ex. PW-17/B-4, Ex. PW-17/B-6, Ex. PW-17/B-8, Ex. PW-17/B-10, Ex. PW-17/B-12, Ex. PW-17/B-14, Ex. PW-17/B-16 and Ex. PW-17/B-18. Account Books entries (copies Ex. PW-4/A and Ex. PW-4/B) proved by PW-4 Surinder Kumar also prove the fact. In Ex. PW-4/B,number of scants, the number Railway wagons and the number of Railway Receipts are the same as appear in the aforesaid Railway Receipts Ex.PW-6/A-1 to Ex. PW-6/A-11. As per Ex. PW-4/B, the number of scants, which reached the firm, of which PW-4 Surinder Kumar is a partner, comes to 2662. 6.That means 495 scants were exported in excess of the permission granted, under permit Ex. PW-50/C. The evidence conclusively proves the charge, under Rules 18 and 20 of the H.P. Forest Produce Transit (Land Route) Rules, 1978, against appellant Bahadur Singh Negi. So far as the other two appellants are concerned, simply for the reason that in the Bank Account Opening form, father’s name of Bahadur Singh Negi was wrongly written, which in fact was the name of the father of the other two appellants or on account of appellant Balbir Singh Bastu having signed as Bahadur Singh Negi, it cannot be held that there was any conspiracy between them and appellant Bahadur Singh Negi or that they were party to the export of timber, in excess of the limit prescribed in the export permit. As regards the charge, under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471, suffice it to say that there no specific charge of cheating was framed against any of the appellants and the charge of forgery was that they had forged export permit. The charge was not that the appellants had forged Bank Account Opening forms or any other bank papers, on which allegation they have been convicted and sentenced for the offence of forgery. In view of the above discussion, appeals filed by appellants Balbir Singh Bastu and Jia Lal Bastu are accepted, judgment of the trial Court, to the extent it convicts and sentences them of various offences, is set aside in totality. As regards appeal filed by appellant Bahadur Singh Negi, the same is partly accepted. His conviction and sentences for offences, under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471, are set aside. However, his conviction and sentence, under Rules 18 & 20 of the H.P. Forest Produce Transit (Land Route) Rules, 1978, are maintained. As regards appeal filed by appellant Bahadur Singh Negi, the same is partly accepted. His conviction and sentences for offences, under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471, are set aside. However, his conviction and sentence, under Rules 18 & 20 of the H.P. Forest Produce Transit (Land Route) Rules, 1978, are maintained. All the appeals stand disposed of accordingly. *************************************************************************