JUDGMENT V.K. Sharma, J. The State is in appeal against the judgment dated 10.08.2000 of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Theog, District Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, in case No. 51-II of 1993, titled State vs. Suresh Kumar and others, whereby the respondents herein (who shall hereinafter be called as 'the accused' and denoted as A-1, A-2 so on and so forth) were tried for the breach of Rule 11 of the H.P. Forest Produce Transit (land Routes) Rules, 1978 read with Sections 41 & 42 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (in short 'the Act') and were ultimately acquitted. 2. Shorn of details, factual matrix of the prosecution case is that on 02.10.1992 a police party headed by SHO Gurmeet Singh of Police Station, Theog, comprising of ASI Devi Lal, HC Diwan Singh and Constable Devinder Singh was present at Dharampur (Diba) in connection with investigation of a case arising out of FIR No. 165 of 1992 under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. At about 3:30 a.m. Truck bearing registration No. HIS – 1041 came from Kayartoo side. The vehicle was stopped and it was found that it was being driven by A-2, Lakshmi Dutt and other co-accused were sitting in the vehicle. On checking, 150 tins of resin were found in the vehilce. However, the accused could not produce any permit and 'rawangi challan' for transporting the said forest produce, which was taken into possession vide memo, Ex. PW-1/A. 3. On completion of investigation the accused were sent up to face trial. On being charged, they did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution evidence followed. In all eight witnesses were examined. 4. On close of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein they pleaded innocence and false implication. However, they did not lead any evidence in defence. After hearing the parties, the learned trial court proceeded to acquit the accused, as already noticed. 5. I have heard the learned Assistant Advocate General for the appellant-State, the learned counsel for the respondents-accused and gone through the record. 6. Section 41 of the Act empowers the State Government to make rules to regulate transit of forest produce. In exercise of such powers the State Government has framed the Himachal Pradesh Forest Produce Transit (Land Routes) Rules, 1978 (in short 'the Rules'), rule 20 whereof provides for penalty etc. 6. Section 41 of the Act empowers the State Government to make rules to regulate transit of forest produce. In exercise of such powers the State Government has framed the Himachal Pradesh Forest Produce Transit (Land Routes) Rules, 1978 (in short 'the Rules'), rule 20 whereof provides for penalty etc. for breach of the rules and is as under: “20 Penalty etc., for breach of rules.- Any person who contravenes these rules shall be liable to imprisonment for a term which may extend to [two years] or with fine which may extend to [Rs. 5000] or with both and the forest produce being transported may also be4 seized and dealt with under the provisions of the Indian Forest Act. Provided that the penalties will be doubled in cases where the offence has been committed after sun set or before sun-rise, or after resistance to the lawful authority or where the offender has been previously convicted of like offence.” 7. The impugned judgment of acquittal is based mainly on the ground that a valid permit dated 16.08.1992, Ex. DA, for transportation of 600 tins of resin weighing 108 quintals was issued in favour of H.P. State forest Corporation Limited and the aforesaid 150 tins of resin which were being transported by the accused in truck No. HIS 1041 form part of the consignment covered under the said permit. It is not in dispute that the forest produce in question was the property of H.P. State Forest Corporation Limited. Though the permit was for transportation of 600 tins of resin, yet since only 150 tins of resin were being transported in the aforesaid truck when it was intercepted by the police, the incongruity in this regard was explained by the accused in reply to question No. 11 of the respective statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as under, which appears to be plausible: “Q.11. It has come in evidence against you that even permit Ex. DA show that it was for the export of 600 resin tins and of that time you were carrying 150 resin tins. Therefore, there was no reference about the remaining tins which were not in the truck. What do you have to say about it? Ans. It is correct. However, the vehicle can not move with load of 600 tins as there is upward trend in the road from Dharampur to Kelvi.” 8. Therefore, there was no reference about the remaining tins which were not in the truck. What do you have to say about it? Ans. It is correct. However, the vehicle can not move with load of 600 tins as there is upward trend in the road from Dharampur to Kelvi.” 8. Apart from it, when the truck was intercepted it was within the same revenue estate in which the forest produce was extracted and was being transported. Thus the learned trial judge came to the conclusion that the prosecution was not able to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and proceeded to acquit them. I am satisfied that these findings are borne out of the evidence on record and do not call for any interference at the hands of this Court. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.