Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1740 (HP)

State of H. P. v. Mast Ram

2011-03-25

SURJIT SINGH

body2011
JUDGMENT : Surjit Singh, Judge(Oral) State has appealed against the judgment dated 31st December, 2002, of learned Special Judge, whereby respondents Mast Ram and others (numbering twelve) have been acquitted of charge, under Sections 379, 420, 468, 471, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Sections 41/42 of Indian Forest Act, read with Rules 11, 18 & 20 of H.P. Forest Produce Transit (Land Routes) Rules, 1978. 2. Case of the prosecution, which led to the challaning, charge-sheeting and the trial of the respondents, may be noticed. There used to be a firm, named and styled as M/s Mast Ram Tanta, of which respondents Mast Ram, Bhupinder Singh and Padam Singh were the partners. The firm did the business of lumbering. It used to buy trees, standing on Government forests, from H.P. State Forest Corporation. It used to fell the trees, convert those trees into timber and thereafter export the timber, after obtaining export permits. One of the partners of the firm, namely respondent Bhupinder Singh, had respondent Attar Singh, as his Munshi (an employee). Respondent Shiv Lal was Munshi of the firm. 3. The firm was allotted two lots of trees, bearing Nos.26/81-82 and 14/81-82. The first lot consisted of 227 trees and the second one of 95 trees. In addition to the aforesaid two lots, the firm was also allotted 51 trees, which were required to be felled, in connection with construction of a road. Both the lots and 51 trees, aforesaid, fell within the area under the control of Divisional Forest Officer, Rohru. 4. After felling the trees, firm, through its partners, applied for permits to export the timber, extracted from the aforesaid trees. Five permits were granted in favour of the firm, against which 19693 scants were allowed to be exported. Particulars of those five permits are as follows: Sr. No. Number of permit Expiry Date Exhibit Number Number of scants permitted to be exported. 1. 17/81-82 11.8.1981 PW-37/J 3871 2. 113/81-82 14.9.1981 PW-37/A 789 3. 55/81-82 3.7.1981 PW-37/L 3993 4. 136/81-82 16.11.1981 PW-37/B 4900 5. 213/81-82 31.1.1982 PW-37/C 6140 5. Particulars of those five permits are as follows: Sr. No. Number of permit Expiry Date Exhibit Number Number of scants permitted to be exported. 1. 17/81-82 11.8.1981 PW-37/J 3871 2. 113/81-82 14.9.1981 PW-37/A 789 3. 55/81-82 3.7.1981 PW-37/L 3993 4. 136/81-82 16.11.1981 PW-37/B 4900 5. 213/81-82 31.1.1982 PW-37/C 6140 5. While investigating a case, regarding illicit felling of trees from Government land and export of excess timber, against the prescribed limit of export permits, by Railways, it came to light that against 19693 scants, permitted to be exported, under the aforesaid five permits, 21960 scants had been exported and, thus, there was excess export of 2267 scants. A case was registered, on the detection of the aforesaid criminal act, vide FIR Ex.PW-85/B, on the basis of police report Ex.PW-85/A. 6. During the course of investigation, 139 Railway Receipts, Ex. PW-30/G-1 to Ex. PW-30/G-139, were taken into possession and sent to the Government of Examiner of Questioned Documents, for comparison with the standard writings and signatures of respondent Amrit Singh, Railway Station Master, respondent D.R. Saini, Assistant Station Master and respondent M.L. Joshi, again an Assistant Station Master of Railway Station, Summer Hill. Government of Examiner of Questioned Documents, reported that most of the Railway Receipts were written and signed by one or the other of the aforesaid three Railway employees and a few of the Railway Receipts were written and signed by another Assistant Station Master R.L. Dua, who died during investigation. 7. On completion of investigation, report, under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, alongwith relevant papers, was filed in the Court of Special Judge. Subsequently, a supplementary challan was filed, in which it was alleged that the source of excess timber exported, against the aforesaid five permits, was illicit felling of trees, in the forests included in the two lots and also around the road, for the construction of which 51 trees were permitted to be felled by the aforesaid firm. 8. Learned Special Judge, after complying with the requirement of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and hearing learned Public Prosecutor as also learned defence counsel, felt that a prima face case, under the aforesaid provisions of the Indian Penal Code, Prevention of Corruption Act and Indian Forest Act, read with H.P. Forest Produce Transit (Land Routes) Rules, 1978, was made out against the respondents. They were charged accordingly. They were charged accordingly. On their pleading not guilty, they were put on trial. 9. Prosecution examined a large number of witnesses, besides proving various documents. Respondents denied that there was any conspiracy for felling trees on Government land or for exporting more timber than permitted, under the aforesaid five permits, or that any illicit felling had taken place or timber, in excess of the permitted limit, had been exported. 10. Learned trial Court concluded that the case of the prosecution did not stand established, beyond reasonable doubt, and consequently acquitted all the respondents. 11. I have heard Shri P.M. Negi, learned Deputy Advocate General, Shri Ramesh Thakur, learned Assistant Advocate General, on behalf of the State-appellant, as also learned counsel appearing for the respondents and gone through the record. 12. What has been submitted on behalf of the State-appellant is that there was criminal conspiracy among the respondents and in furtherance of that conspiracy, offence of illicit felling of trees, standing on Government land, had been committed and also more timber than mentioned in the aforesaid five permits exported. 13. To prove the first allegation, prosecution examined PW-60 Amar Singh, a Revenue Officer, working as Stamp Collector in the H.P. Secretariat and PW-54 Pratap Singh, a Deputy Ranger of Forest Department. 14. PW-60 Amar Singh carried out demarcation in the area, where two lots of trees were allotted to the firm, as also around the road, for the construction of which 51 trees were permitted to be felled by the firm. His reports are Ex. PW-60/C, Ex. PW-60/H, Ex. PW-60/L, Ex. PW-60/O, Ex. PW-60/R and Ex. PW-60/U. The reports do not speak that any illicit felling was found on the spot. 15. PW-54 Pratap Singh proved writing Ex. PW-54/A, in which it is written that ten stumps of Deodar, 18 stumps of Kail and one stump of Rai trees were found, on which hammer mark or engraved marks (Khudan marks) were not there and those stumps had been damaged by fire and chopping by axe. Those stumps were above (hill side) and below (valley side) the road. 16. Testimony of PW-54 Pratap Singh as also the demarcation reports of PW-60 Amar Singh are not shown to have any link with each other. In any case, as already noticed, demarcation reports do not speak of any illicit felling. Stumps list Ex. Those stumps were above (hill side) and below (valley side) the road. 16. Testimony of PW-54 Pratap Singh as also the demarcation reports of PW-60 Amar Singh are not shown to have any link with each other. In any case, as already noticed, demarcation reports do not speak of any illicit felling. Stumps list Ex. PW-54/A does not indicate that the stumps were found on the land demarcated to be Government land, by PW-60 Amar Singh. Not only this, list Ex. PW-54/A does not indicate that the stumps were of illicitly felled trees or of the trees those were permitted to be felled by the firm or any other person, including the persons entitled to fell trees, under Timber Distribution Scheme, which was prevalent at that time. Therefore, even the allegation that illicit felling had taken place in the area where the firm had been allotted two lots or where they had been permitted to fell 51 trees, for clearing the site for construction of road, does not stand proved, leave alone the allegation that such felling had been carried out by the firm of respondents No.1, 2 and 11. 17. Coming to the next allegation, regarding export of more timber than the quantity prescribed in permits Ex.PW-37/J, Ex. PW-37/A, Ex. PW-37/L, Ex. PW-37/B, and Ex. PW-37/C, prosecution has proved on record 139 Railway Receipts, against which timber was sent to stations, outside the State of Himachal Pradesh, from Summer Hill Railway Station. Against these 139 Railway Receipts, a total number of 24106 scants had been exported. Some of these Railway Receipts do not pertain to the aforesaid five permits. These Railway Receipts are Ex. PW-30/G-4, Ex. PW-37/G-5, Ex. PW-30/G-16, Ex. PW-30/G-25, Ex. PW-30/G-26, Ex. PW-30/G-27, Ex. PW-30/G- 29, Ex. PW-30/G-51, Ex. PW-30/G-73, Ex. PW-30/G-74, Ex. PW-30/G-75, Ex. PW-30/G-104 (in which permit numbers are not given), Ex. PW-30/G-112, Ex. PW-30/G-117, Ex. PW-30/G-137 and Ex. PW-30/G-120 (in which permit numbers are different, i.e. 191, 151 and 51). The total number of scants exported against these Railway Receipts (in which either the numbers of export permits are not there or numbers of export permits are different) comes to 2192. That means out of the total scants exported against these Railway Receipts, 2192 scants are required to be excluded. By this exclusion, the number of scants exported, against the aforesaid five permits, comes down to 21465. 18. That means out of the total scants exported against these Railway Receipts, 2192 scants are required to be excluded. By this exclusion, the number of scants exported, against the aforesaid five permits, comes down to 21465. 18. In respect to some of the Railway Receipts, on which number of the aforesaid five export permits is mentioned, it is not proved that the permit number is written in the hand of the Railway employees, because the portions, pertaining to export permit numbers on such Railway Receipts were not subjected to comparison by the Handwriting Export. These Railway Receipts are Ex. PW30/G-40, Ex. PW-30/G-80, Ex. PW-30/G-105, Ex. PW-30/G-106 and Ex. PW-30/G-107. Export permits number on these Railway Receipts is written on the top. The fact that the portion of the writing, regarding permit number, is excluded from the encircled portions of the Railway Receipts, which were subjected to comparison by the Handwriting Expert, creates a doubt whether these numbers were there when the Railway Receipts were sent to the Handwriting Expert, for his opinion. It is quite likely that the export permit numbers on these Railway Receipts were written, after the opinion of the Handwriting Expert. 19. When portions of all other Railway Receipts, regarding number of permit, which had been enclosed in the circles, were required to be compared, there could have been no reason for not including the similar portions, on the aforesaid five Railway Receipts. Total number of scants, mentioned in these Railway Receipts Ex. PW-30/G-40, Ex. PW-30/G-80, Ex. PW-30/G-105, Ex. PW-30/G-106 and Ex. PW-30/G-107, comes to 1114. If this number is also excluded, the total number of scants exported against the aforesaid five permits comes to 20800. Thus, the excess number of scants gets reduced to 1107. 20. There is an explanation in the evidence of the prosecution itself, with regard to this increase in the number of scants exported. Prosecution examined PW-30 Shri K.C. Nandwani, who testified that while loading timber in the wagons, some scants have to be cut into two or more pieces to properly adjust the timber in the wagon, so that the scants do not rattle, when being carried. If that is so, it can legitimately be presumed that increase in the number of scants could have been due to cutting of some of scants into two or more pieces. If that is so, it can legitimately be presumed that increase in the number of scants could have been due to cutting of some of scants into two or more pieces. There is no evidence, indicating that the total volume of the exported timber exceeded the volume mentioned in the permits. 21. Learned Deputy Advocate General submits that one Bir Singh had made a confessional statement, at the time when damage reports were issued against respondent Mast Ram, on account of his carrying some timber in two Trucks, pertaining to permit No.136. The damage reports are Ex. PW-76/A and Ex. PW-76/B. Timber was being carried in the two Trucks, referred to in the two damage reports, in excess of what was declared in the challans. Challans have not been proved. Therefore, it cannot be said that as a matter of fact the quantity of timber, which was being carried, was in excess of the declared quantity. 22. In any case, the quantity of timber, referred to in the two damage reports, is supposed to be included in the timber, which was taken outside the State of Himachal Pradesh, through Railways, against the aforesaid Railway Receipts and the total quantity carried, through Railways, has been found to be within the prescribed limit of the quantity mentioned in the aforesaid five export permits. That apart, the fact that the offence allegedly committed by Mast Ram, as per the aforesaid two damage reports, stood compounded, as per prosecution’s own story and if that is so export of timber, referred to in the damage reports, cannot be taken into account, for concluding that excess timber was exported, because of the doctrine of double jeopardy. 23. In view of the above stated position, I see no valid reason to interfere with the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.