Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 226 (HP)

Shama Nand Kalta v. STATE OF H. P.

2013-04-03

SANJAY KAROL

body2013
JUDGMENT SANJAY KAROL, J. - 1. F .I.R. No. 280/93 (Ext. PW-4/A) dated 17.11.1993 was registered at Police Station East, Shimla, under the provisions of Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. As per the case of the prosecution, vehicle driven by Raju alias Rajinder Singh (accused No. 2) was intercepted by the Flying Squad of the Forest Department, Government of Himachal Pradesh in which it was found that certain articles of wooden furniture/frames were being carried. The articles belonged to Shama Nand Kalta (accused No. 1). These Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Articles were being carried without permit. The matter was investigated by the police. Challan was presented in the Court for trial and the accused were charged for having committed offences punishable under the provisions of Section 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. 2. IN order to prove its case prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses. Statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were also recorded. The accused also led evidence by examining two witnesses in support of their case. Appreciating the material on record, the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Court No. III, Shimla, H.P. vide judgment dated 8.9.2000 passed in Case No. 301/3 of 96/94, convicted the accused for having committed offences punishable under Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act and each of the accused were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. 3. THE aforesaid judgment stands affirmed in appeal filed by the accused persons by the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Shimla, H.P. in terms of judgment dated 22.3.2005 passed in Cr. Appeal No. 19-S/10 of 2003/2000, titled as Shyama Nand Kalta & another versus State of H.P. Hence the present revision petition on behalf of the accused persons. 4. HAVING perused the record and heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that the courts below have absolutely misdirected themselves and committed grave and serious error in fully and correctly appreciating the evidence produced by the parties before the trial Court, resulting into grave miscarriage of justice. The fact that the window and door frames belonging to Sh. The fact that the window and door frames belonging to Sh. Shyama Nand Kalta (accused No. 1) were being carried in the vehicle driven by Raju alias Rajinder Singh (accused No. 2) is not in dispute. In order to establish that the accused persons had carried the timber in violation of the provisions of Indian Forest Act, prosecution has relied upon the testimony of complainant Sh. S.S. Saini (PW-1) and officials Sh. Narayan Dass (PW-2) and Sh. Ramesh Chand (PW-3). These witnesses no doubt have proved the fact that the vehicle was intercepted and timber was recovered from the same. 5. SECTION 41 of the Indian Forest Act empowers the State Government to frame rules for transit of the timber either by land or water. Section 42 of the Act provides penalty for contravention of such rules. The State has framed rules prohibiting transit of timber without permission. The question which needs to be considered is as to whether the accused actually violated the provisions of Section 41 of the Act or not. 6. NOW significantly, in the instant case, accused Shyama Nand Kalta who was the owner of the seized wooden frames and door had demolished his old ancestral house in his native village at Kotkhai, Distt. Shimla. The wood salvaged from the said house was sought to be converted into furniture and then brought to Shimla. For this purpose Sh. Shyama Nand had filed a writ petition in the High Court of Himachal Pradesh. This Court vide order dated 30.12.1992, passed in CWP No. 513 of 1992, titled as Shyama Nand Kalta versus State of H.P. & others, (Ext. P-1 and Ext. D-X) allowed the petitioner therein i.e. Sh. Shyama Nand Kalta, accused No. 1 herein, to convert the wood so salvaged from his ancestral house into furniture and boxes and bring it to his house at Shimla from his village in finished form. In fact, the Court had permitted him to sell the same. The Court specifically directed that Sh. Shyama Nand Kalta would not be required to obtain any permission for this purpose or permit from the H.P. State Forest Corporation. The order was passed by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances, in the presence of the learned counsel for the State as also the Forest Corporation. Now admittedly this order has attained finality. The order was passed by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances, in the presence of the learned counsel for the State as also the Forest Corporation. Now admittedly this order has attained finality. Under these circumstances, petitioner converted the timber and carried the same from his native village in Tehsil Kotkhai to Shimla. Significantly the vehicle in question was intercepted at two places, first at Dhalli which is just short of Police Station, Shimla. There the order passed by this Court was shown to the authorities. This has come in the evidence of Sh. Narayan Dass (PW-2). The vehicle was allowed to proceed towards Shimla after the authorities were fully satisfied about the fact that the wooden articles being carried in the vehicle were the ones for which the High Court had granted permission. It was only when the vehicle reached Chotta Shimla, which is at a distance of just five kilometers from Dhalli, that the vehicle was again intercepted and the authorities registered the case. In my considered view, once when the owner had been granted permission by the High Court to carry /transit goods, it cannot be said that any one of the accused persons had criminal intent of violating the transit rules or infringe the provisions of the Indian Forest Act. There was neither any intent nor any object and purpose in doing the same. They were carrying the wooden articles pursuant to order passed by this Court. 7. IN view of the aforesaid discussions, I am of the considered view that it cannot be said that the judgments passed by the Courts below are sustainable in law. Hence the same needs to be reversed. The finding of conviction and sentence needs to be set aside. Accused are acquitted. Bail bonds furnished by the accused are directed to be discharged. With the aforesaid observations, present revision petition stands disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any. Petition stands disposed.