Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 698 (HP)

State of Himachal Pradesh v. Kanwar Singh Rawat

2014-06-02

MANSOOR AHMAD MIR, V.K.SHARMA

body2014
JUDGMENT : V.K. Sharma, J. 1. The State is in appeal against the judgment dated 26.9.2000, rendered by the learned Special Judge (Forest), Shimla, Himachal Pradesh, in Sessions Trial No. 8-S/7 of 97/93, State vs. Kanwar Singh Rawat and Others, acquitting the respondents herein, who shall hereinafter be referred to as the accused and denoted as A-1, A-2 and A-3, respectively, for the offences under Sections 447, 379, 420, 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal code (in short IPC); Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 corresponding to Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. The charge-sheet was laid against as many as six accused, namely Ram Parshad Sohta, Kanwar Singh Rawat (A-1), Rajinder Mohan Dua (in short R.M. Dua), Amrit Singh (A-2), S.R. Messon and Ram Parkash (A-3). However, consequent upon death of accused Ram Parshad Sohta, R.M. Dua and S.R. Messon during pendency of trial, the case against them stood abated. 3. Accused Ram Parshad Sohta was resident of Village Dhar, Tehsil Rohru, District Shimla and one of the co-owners of the land comprised in Khasra No. 8 situate in Village Chak Dhar. It is alleged that during 1980-81 he had obtained felling orders of kail and deodar trees from the said Khasra number and sold the same to A-1, Kanwar Singh Rawat. 4. A-1 Kanwar Singh Rawat is resident of village Katasu, who during the year 1981-82 was carrying on trade as private sale forest contractor in the name of a sole proprietary concern known as M/s Karan Singh Swara, Tehsil Jubbal, District Shimla. 5. Accused S.R. Messon remained posted as Divisional Forest Officer, Rohru, at the relevant time and during the period when the alleged offences are stated to have been committed by the accused. 6. A-3 Ram Parkash remained posted as Camp Clerk in the office of the Divisional Forest Officer, Rohru, from 9.10.1978 till the year 1986. 7. A-2 Amrit Singh remained posted as Station Master at Summer Hill Railway Station from December, 1980 to May, 1986, as is evident from letter Ex.PW-24/A. 8. The factual matrix as emerges out of the record and as noticed by the learned trial Judge is as follows. 9. 7. A-2 Amrit Singh remained posted as Station Master at Summer Hill Railway Station from December, 1980 to May, 1986, as is evident from letter Ex.PW-24/A. 8. The factual matrix as emerges out of the record and as noticed by the learned trial Judge is as follows. 9. During investigation of case FIR No. 17/84 of Police Station, Enforcement) South Zone, Shimla, being carried out by the then SHO/Inspector Sunder Lal (later on promoted as Dy.S.P and examined as PW-1), it came to light from the records of Summer Hill Railway Station that A-1 on the basis of export permit No. 101/81- 82, dated 27.7.1981 and vide its extention No. 107/81-82 was allowed to export 1210 scants of kail and 307 scants of deodar within the stipulated period, but instead he transported and exported 1328 scants of kail and 397 scants of deodar and thereby exported 118 scants of kail and 90 scants of deodar in excess. It is further alleged that he had also exported timber from Summer Hill Railway Station under permit No. 167/81-82, dated 21.5.1982, valid upto 30.5.1982, vide railway receipt numbers 670008, dated 4.6.1982 and 670017, dated 6.6.1982 after the expiry of the validity period of the said permit. 10. Against the foregoing background, PW-1 suspected that A-1 in pursuance of criminal conspiracy with the officials of forest department had obtained timber from the trees illicitly felled from the Government forest and exported the same in excess and after the validity period of the permits in furtherance of said criminal conspiracy in league with the railway officials at summer Hill Railway Station beyond the territory of the State of Himachal Pradesh in violation of prescribed law and rules. He also believed that the forest and railway officials by doing aforesaid illegal acts caused pecuniary loss to the State of Himachal Pradesh and wrongful gain to A-1 and thereby cheated the Government. 11. PW-1 reduced the aforesaid said information in writing in the form of Rukka Ext. PW1/A, on the basis of which a case under Sections 379, 420 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 4142 of the Indian Forest Act and Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 came to be registered vide FIR No. 29/84, Ext. PW1/C on 21.12.84, in Police Station Enforcement, South Zone, Shimla. 12. The case was initially investigated by PW-1. PW1/C on 21.12.84, in Police Station Enforcement, South Zone, Shimla. 12. The case was initially investigated by PW-1. He took into possession copy of FIR No. 17/84, Ex.PW1/D and documents pertaining to the export permits Ext. PW1/E-1 to Ext. PW1/E-12 from Railway Station Shogi. Thereafter investigation of the case was carried out by Shri Gurdit Singh (PW-54). During the course of such investigation, it is alleged that on the basis of a D.O. letter from the then Hon'ble Chief Minister, Shri Virbhadra Singh, an enquiry was conducted jointly by Shri K.C. Nandwani (PW-50) and M.A. Siddiqui (PW-38) into the alleged timber smuggling and illegal export of timber from Summer Hill Railway Station. Both of them also conducted investigation in the alleged irregularities committed by railway authorities at Railway Station Summer Hill while exporting timber and submitted their report Ext. PW 38/A. As per report Ext. PW38/A and other connected documents involvement of A-2 and R.M. Dua was also established and they were found to have committed irregularities in the discharge of their official duties. 13. It is stated that the Govt. of Himachal Pradesh through the department of forest approved a scheme of 10 years felling programme from the private land in the area falling within the territorial limits of Sub Division Rohru etc. as per letters Ext. PW13/A and Ext. PW-13/B. Indisputably, the disputed land comprised in Khasra Nos. 8 and 10 is situate in Revenue Estate Chak Dhar, which falls within the territorial limits of Rohru Sub Division. 14. After the said concession extended by the Govt. of Himachal Pradesh, Ram Parshad Sohta applied for permission to cut and fell trees from Khasra No. 8, vide application Ext. PW4/C-3, supported by requisite documents, which was processed through Pradhan of the concerned Gram Panchayat and requisite reports were called after due verification and demarcation of the land comprised in Khasra No. 8. Accordingly trees were marked. 15. It is alleged that Ram Parshad Sohta had executed an agreement (Iqrar Nama) Ext. PW4/C-13 in favour of A-1 showing sale of trees in Khasra No. 8. Thereafter A-1 on the basis of documents Ext.PW4/C-7 and Ext.PW4/C-8 obtained felling orders qua trees in Khasra No. 8 subject to the terms and conditions specified in memorandum Ext.PW4/C-9 and trees enlisted in list Ext.PW4/C-10. PW4/C-13 in favour of A-1 showing sale of trees in Khasra No. 8. Thereafter A-1 on the basis of documents Ext.PW4/C-7 and Ext.PW4/C-8 obtained felling orders qua trees in Khasra No. 8 subject to the terms and conditions specified in memorandum Ext.PW4/C-9 and trees enlisted in list Ext.PW4/C-10. It is alleged that A-1 had purportedly forged the signatures of Ram Parshad Sohta on agreement Ext.PW4/C-13, application Ext.PW4/C-3, for permission to cut and fell trees and applications Ext.PW4/C-8 and Ext. PW4/C-11 and thereby obtained felling orders of trees from Khasra No. 8 in his name. 16. It is further alleged that after felling of trees, A-1 moved application Ext.PW4/C-11 to the concerned authorities for issuance of export permit of the timber so felled from Khasra No. 8. On the strength of this application export permit No. 101/81-82 (Ext.PW3/A) (Ext.PW4/C-14) dated 27.7.81 was granted in favour of A-1 to export 1003 scants (2504.59 cft.) of kail and 207 scants (484.59 cft.) of deodar, totaling 1210 scants (2989.24 cft.) as per list Ext.PW4/C- 15 upto 15.8.81. It is further alleged that A-1 again moved application Ext.PW4/C-16 to the forest authorities for permission to export the remaining scants under permit No. 101/81-82, which allegedly could not be exported within the validity period of the said permit. Accordingly extension was granted up to 26.9.81 to export the remaining 102 scants of deodar and 233 scants of kail, totaling 335 scants vide extension order Ext/.PW4/C-17. 17. It is also alleged that A-1 on the basis of another application dated 17.12.198, Ext.PW4/C-18 obtained another export permit No. 187/81-82, Ext.PW3/D (Ext.PW4/C-19) dated 22.12.81, for the export of 702 scants (2184.16 cft.) of kail as per timber list Ext.PW4/C-20. This permit was valid upto 18.1.82. Thereafter, he moved application Ext.PW4/C-21 to the forest authorities for extension of time to export remaining/balance 307 scants of kail under permit No. 187/81-82, which could not be exported by him within the stipulated period. Accordingly, he was allowed extension vide order Ext.PW4/C-22 to export the said 307 scants upto 30.5.82 via specified forest check posts and routes mentioned therein. 18. Further allegation is that A-1 exported scants under permit Nos. 101/81-82 and 187/81-82 through forest check posts Khara Pathar and Dhalli vide different challans and further exported these scants from Summer Hill and Shogi Railway Stations under permit Nos. 18. Further allegation is that A-1 exported scants under permit Nos. 101/81-82 and 187/81-82 through forest check posts Khara Pathar and Dhalli vide different challans and further exported these scants from Summer Hill and Shogi Railway Stations under permit Nos. 101/81-82 and 187/81-82 vide different railway receipts from as per details given below:- RR No. Date Scants Issued by 528300 2.8.81 217 Sh. R.M. Dua, ASM 992753 3.8.81 194 -do- 992754 -do- 187 Sh. Amrit Singh, SM 992760 -do- 172 -do- 992761 5.8.81 182 -do- 992775 9.8.81 200 Sh. R.M. Dua, ASM 992786 13.8.81 183 Sh. Amrit Singh, S.M. Total 1335 821746 15.9.81 206 Sh. M.R. Mehta, ASM 670008 4.6.82 183 Sh. R.M. Dua, ASM 670017 6.6.82 186 -do- Total 369 842370 28.12.81 105 Sh. Subhash Chander Sharma ASM 842371 28.12.81 100 Sh. Nathu Singh ASM 842389 31.12.81 213 Sh. Subhash Chander Sharma ASM 89824 14.1.82 84 Total 683 19. It was found during investigation that 1541 scants pertaining to permit No. 101/81-82 and 968 scants pertaining to permit No. 187/81-82 were purchased by M/s. Ramesh Chander Sharma and sons, Yamuna Nagar and 84 scants under permit No. 187/81-82 were purchased by Shri Sudesh Kumar Sharma, Yamuna Nagar. According to the railway receipt register, payment of the above mentioned timber was alleged to have been made by M/s. Ramesh Chander Sharma and sons and M/s Sudesh Kumar Sharma to M/s Kanwar Singh Rawat through bank drafts/cheques. The entries were also found to the said effect in their ledger/khata, which were also taken into possession. The detail of bank drafts and cheques, as alleged, is as under:- Cheque No. Date Amount Rs. 950087 5.8.81 50,000/- Paid to Sh. Ramesh Chander Sharma through BOB Shimla 812006 16.12.81 40,000/- -do- 812033 25.5.82 20,000/- Paid by Ramesh Chander through BOB Shimla. 812043 21.7.82 11,800/- -do- 950527 13.12.82 20,000/- Paid to Sh. Sudesh Kumar Sharma through BOB Shimla Draft No. 276792 18.10.80 20,000/- By Ramesh Chander SBI Sawra. 182261 27.6.81 30,000/- -do- 20. The aforesaid drafts/cheques were taken into possession from BOB branch Shimla and SBI Sawra branch along with their statements of accounts and A/C opening forms. The following bills were allegedly taken into possession from M/s Sudesh Kumar Sharma and M/s Ramesh Chander Sharma and sons:- Bill No. Date Scants Cfts. Amount Rs. 182261 27.6.81 30,000/- -do- 20. The aforesaid drafts/cheques were taken into possession from BOB branch Shimla and SBI Sawra branch along with their statements of accounts and A/C opening forms. The following bills were allegedly taken into possession from M/s Sudesh Kumar Sharma and M/s Ramesh Chander Sharma and sons:- Bill No. Date Scants Cfts. Amount Rs. Nil 10.7.82 166 540.93 20139.00 -do- 2.8.81 918 2822.17 52428.22 -do- 5.8.81 488 1484.42 48853.82 -do- 28.12.81 599 1942.90 74500.00 -do- 15.9.81 727 2169.27 74216.67 -do- 25.10.81 524 1474.75 54367.96 Total 3422 10434.44 324505.67 21. It was also detected during investigation that besides the aforesaid permits, a third permit No. 134/81-82, dated 15.10.81, valid upto 5.11.81 for 562 scants was also issued in favour of A-1 and on the basis of this permit he exported 198 scants vide railway receipt No. 821837, dated 4.11.81, 215 scants vide railway receipt No. 821823, dated 25.10.81 and 100 scants vide railway receipt No. 221828, dated 29.10.81. The delivery of these scants was received by M/s Ramesh Chander Sharma and sons, according to their railway receipt register. 22. It is further alleged that total 2474 scants (6209.86 cft.) were allowed to be exported by A-1 under all the three permits referred to here-in-above, but he exported 3422 scants and thereby exported 948 scants in excess from Railway Stations Summer Hill and Shogi to Jagadhari and Yamuna Nagar. It was also found during investigation that A-1 was not a registered forest contractor. Hence, he was not entitled to purchase trees from private land, obtain export permits and export timber under the rules. 23. During investigation re-demarcation and counting of stumps was carried out at the instance of the Investigating Officer through Shri Jagan Nath, Naib Tehsildar, (PW-9) alongwith Shri Gobinder Singh, Kanungo, Mohan Lal, Nikka Ram Patwaries and Shri Daljit Singh, Deputy Ranger. As per report Ex.PW-9/A, submitted by PW-9 Shri Jagan Nath, Naib Tehsildar, 417 stumps were found in khasra No. 8, belonging to Ram Parshad Sohta etc. 38 stumps in Govt. forest bearing khasra No. 10 and 39 stumps in Giri Govt. forest. Govt. land was also found to have been encroached by Ram Parshad Sohta, wherein he had planted apple plants and had fenced the same with barbed wire. 38 stumps in Govt. forest bearing khasra No. 10 and 39 stumps in Giri Govt. forest. Govt. land was also found to have been encroached by Ram Parshad Sohta, wherein he had planted apple plants and had fenced the same with barbed wire. On further investigation it was found that Ram Parshad Sohta and A-1 in connivance with S.R. Messon and A- 3, cut and felled 77 trees from Govt. land and got permits No. 101/81- 82 and 187/81-82 on the basis of which A-1 exported timber of both permits from Railway Stations Summer Hill and Shogi to Jagadhari and Yamuna Nagar in excess. A-1 in connivance with S.R. Messon and A-3 obtained the said permits through the specified routes, Summer Hill/Shogi and while issuing the said permits S.R. Messon and A-3 failed to specify the specific routes either through Summer Hill or Shogi and instead specified the route through Summer Hill/Shogi railway stations in contravention of the rules contained in H.P. Forest Produce Transit (Land Routes) Rules, 1978. 24. It was further revealed during investigation that A-2 (the then Station Master, Summer Hill Railway Station) had booked 183 scants vide railway receipt No. 992786, dated 13.8.81 fully knowing well the fact that only 58 scants were in balance under the said permits. But he in connivance with A-1 intentionally booked timber in excess and facilitated export of excess timber illicitly felled from Govt. forest by accepting forwarding notes. 25. It was further found that A-3 had put notes contrary to the rules and instructions before S.R. Messon, who intentionally ignored the rules and issued export permits. During investigation, the police collected the material documents allegedly connecting the accused persons with the commission of the alleged offences, got their signatures and writings compared with their specimen signatures and hand writings and admitted signatures and writings from the Govt. Examiner of Questioned Documents, obtained sanction to prosecute A-2, R.M. Dua and S.R. Messon and A-3 from the concerned competent authorities. 26. 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. It examined as many as 55 witnesses. 27. On close of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined by the learned trial court under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short Cr.P.C.). On being charged, they did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution evidence followed. It examined as many as 55 witnesses. 27. On close of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined by the learned trial court under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short Cr.P.C.). While denying the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution evidence, they have pleaded innocence and false implication. 28. On conclusion of the trial all the three accused were acquitted, as already noticed. 29. We have heard the learned Advocate General for the appellant- State and learned counsel for the respondents-accused and perused the records. The prosecution has attacked the impugned judgment of acquittal on various grounds such as that the same is against the facts on record and law; based on conjectures and surmises and undue weightage has been given to the defence version without there being any supporting material; prosecution evidence has not been appreciated in the right perspective and material points in favour of the prosecution have been wrongly ignored and that the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Per contra the defence has supported the judgment with full vigour. 30. The learned Special Judge had formulated the following points for determination:- Point No. 1: Whether A.1 forged the signatures and writings of Ram Parsad Sohta on documents Ex.PW4/C-3, Ext.PW4/C-8, Ext. PW4/C-11 and Ext.PW4/C-13 and not being registered forest contractor for the purpose of purchase and export of timber from the private land used the aforesaid forged documents after entering into criminal conspiracy with S.R. Masson and A.3 and other co-accused purchased trees from the private land and obtained export permits illegally? Point No. 2: Whether A.1 in pursuance of criminal conspiracy with his co-accused especially A.2 and R.M. Dua exported the timber from railway station Summer Hill and Shogi in excess and after the expiry of validity period of the export permits? Point No. 3: Whether A.1 in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy with his co-accused had cut and felled trees numbering 77 from the Govt. land comprised in Khasra No. 10 situated in village Chak Dhar with the object to export illicitly cut timber to obtain wrongful gain to himself and wrongful loss to the State of Himachal Pradesh? Point No. 3: Whether A.1 in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy with his co-accused had cut and felled trees numbering 77 from the Govt. land comprised in Khasra No. 10 situated in village Chak Dhar with the object to export illicitly cut timber to obtain wrongful gain to himself and wrongful loss to the State of Himachal Pradesh? Point No. 4: Whether A.2 by issuing wrong railway receipts and allowing the export of excess timber under the permits in question and beyond the validity period and A.3 while putting up the notes for issuance of export permits before S.R. Masson acted in contravention of the instructions and allowed the issuance of export permits in favour of A.1 illegally and by virtue of their aforesaid illegal acts, both A.2 and A.3 being public servants by use of corrupt and illegal means or otherwise abusing their position as public servants obtained pecuniary advantage and caused loss to the State of Himachal Pradesh? Point No. 5: Final Order." 31. The points for determination as above were decided by the learned trial Judge together as under:- "Point No. 1 No. Point No. 2 No. Point No. 3 No. Point No. 4 No. Point No. 5. As per operative part of the judgment, all the accused are acquitted." 32. There being no direct evidence, the case of the prosecution is based solely on circumstantial evidence. The law relating to appreciation of circumstantial evidence has been summed up by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment reported as Brijesh Mavi vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 7 SCC 45 , vide para 27 of the report thus:- "The principles of law governing proof of a criminal charge by circumstantial evidence need hardly any reiteration. From the several decisions of this Court available on the issue the said principles can be summed up by stating that not only the prosecution must prove and establish the incriminating circumstances against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt but the said circumstances against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt the said circumstances must give rise to only one conclusion to the exclusion of all others, namely, that it is the accused and nobody else who had committed the crime. The above principle is deducible from the five propositions laid down by this Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra, which principles have been consistently followed in Tanviben Pankajkumar Divetia vs. State of Gujarat, Vikram Singh vs. State of Punjab, Aftab Ahmad Ansari vs. State of Uttaranchal, Sanatan Naskar vs. State of W.B. and Mohd. Arif vs. State (NCT of Delhi)." 33. We have no hesitation to state at the very outset that the evidence led by the prosecution is lacking in content to return a finding of guilt against the accused on the touchstone of appreciation of circumstantial evidence in the light of the settled legal position consistently enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this court. The reasons to arrive at this inference are set out hereinafter. 34. Now we shall take up the findings returned by the learned Special Judge on the points for determination formulated by him for discussion and decision one by one. Point No. 1: Whether A.1 forged the signatures and writings of Ram Parsad Sohta on documents Ex.PW4/C-3, Ext.PW4/C-8, Ext. PW4/C-11 and Ext.PW4/C-13 and not being registered forest contractor for the purpose of purchase and export of timber from the private land used the aforesaid forged documents after entering into criminal conspiracy with S.R. Masson and A.3 and other co-accused purchased trees from the private land and obtained export permits illegally? 35. The learned Advocate General has fairly conceded that the charge under Sections 467, 468 and 471 relating to forgery against A-1 and A-2 is not proved. To this effect are also the findings returned by the learned Special Judge vide paras 13 to 15 of the impugned judgment, which are based on proper appreciation of evidence. 36. Even otherwise, opinion Ext.PW-44/C and supplementary opinions Ex.PW-44/C-1 to Ex.PW-44/C-3, submitted by PW-44, Dr. B.A. Vaid, Asstt. Govt. Examiner of Questioned Documents, which are based on the specimen handwritings and signatures obtained during 2.3.1988 to 12.12.1989 are not admissible in evidence in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Ram Babu Misra, AIR 1980 SC 791 , wherein, it has been held as under vide para 4 of the report:- "4. The second paragraph of Section 73 enables the Court to direct any person present in Court to give specimen writings 'for the purpose of enabling the Court to compare' such writings with writings alleged to have been written by such person. The clear implication of the words 'for the purpose of enabling the Court to compare' is that there is some proceeding before the Court in which or as a consequence of which it might be necessary for the Court to compare such writings. The direction is to be given for the purpose of 'enabling the Court to compare' and not for the purpose of enabling the investigating or other agency 'to compare'. If the case is still under investigation there is no present proceeding before the Court in which or as a consequence of which it might be necessary to compare the writings. The language of Section 73 does not permit a Court to give a direction to the accused to give specimen writings for anticipated necessity for comparison in a proceeding which may later be instituted in the Court. Further, Section 73 of the Evidence Act makes no distinction between a Civil Court and a Criminal Court. Would it be open to a person to seek the assistance of the Civil Court for a direction to some other person to give sample writing under Section 73 of the Evidence Act on the plea that it would help him to decide whether to institute a Civil Suit in which the question would be whether certain alleged writings are those of the other person or not? Obviously not. If not, why should it make any difference if the investigating agency seeks the assistance of the Court under Section 73 of the Evidence Act on the plea that a case might be instituted before the Court where it would be necessary to compare the writings?" 37. To the similar effect is the proposition of law enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana vs. Jagbir Singh and another, AIR 2003 SC 4377 . This Court has also held on the same lines in Rakesh Kumar vs. State of H.P. 2001 (3) Shimla Law Cases 154 and State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Laje Ram and Others, 2011 (2) Himachal Law Reporter (DB) 597. 38. This Court has also held on the same lines in Rakesh Kumar vs. State of H.P. 2001 (3) Shimla Law Cases 154 and State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Laje Ram and Others, 2011 (2) Himachal Law Reporter (DB) 597. 38. The curative provision of law enacted by the legislature in the shape of Section 311A, which is extracted below, to meet the above situation was brought on the statute book only with effect from 23.06.2006 and is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case, being later in point of time: "311A. Power of Magistrate to order person to give specimen signatures or handwriting.- If a Magistrate of the first class is satisfied that, for the purposes of any investigation for proceeding under this Code, it is expedient to direct any person, including an accused person, to give specimen signatures or handwriting, he may make an order to that effect and in that case the person to whom the order relates shall be produced or shall attend at the time and place specified in such order and shall give his specimen signatures or handwriting: Provided that no order shall be made under this section unless the person has at some time been arrested in connection with such investigation or proceeding." 39. The allegation that A-1 was not registered forest contractor and as such not authorised to purchase and export timber from private land and thereby committed breach of rules and cheated the Government is based on letter Ext.PW-54/A-35 alleged to have been issued by the D.F.O. Rohru and taken into possession by PW-54, Shri Gurdit Singh, Dy.S.P. (Retd.), who has proved the same in evidence. It is stated in letter Ext.PW-54/A-35 that "it is reported that from the perusal of concerned file the contractor Shri Kanwar Singh Rawat R/o Sawra is not found registered as private sale contractor in Rohru Forest Division". However, neither the author of this letter has been examined nor the relevant file on the basis of which it is alleged to have been issued was produced in the court to prove authenticity of the letter. 40. It is admitted by PW-54, Shri Gurdit Singh, Dy. S.P. (Retd.) that the timber exported by A-1 was having property and khudan marks. As per permits Ext.PW.3/A and Ext.PW.3/D the timber was allowed to be transported through forest check posts Khara Pathar and Dhalli. 40. It is admitted by PW-54, Shri Gurdit Singh, Dy. S.P. (Retd.) that the timber exported by A-1 was having property and khudan marks. As per permits Ext.PW.3/A and Ext.PW.3/D the timber was allowed to be transported through forest check posts Khara Pathar and Dhalli. It is not the case of the prosecution that A-1 transported the timber in question without registered mark. This aspect of the matter further fortifies the inference that it cannot be held and concluded that A-1 was not a registered private sale contractor. Point No. 2: Whether A.1 in pursuance of criminal conspiracy with his co-accused especially A.2 and R.M. Dua exported the timber from railway station Summer Hill and Shogi in excess and after the expiry of validity period of the export permits? 41. To a large extent this aspect of the matter is also connected with hand-writing examination of A-1, A-2 and R.M. Dua on the forwarding notes and railway receipts allegedly issued by them qua which report of the hand-writing expert has already been found to be not in accordance with law. 42. It is not the case of the prosecution that while transporting timber through forest check posts at Khara Pathar and Dhalli, A-1 had exported timber over and above the permissible limit or after the validity period of the permits. Instead it is alleged that timber was transported by him in excess and after the validity period of the permits through Summer Hill and Shogi railway stations in conspiracy with A-2 and R.M. Dua. However, it is not explained that how that timber reached Summer Hill or Shogi railway stations without being intercepted either at forest check post Khara Pathar or Dhalli. 43. Still further the gravamen of charge regarding export of excess timber also does not stand proved beyond reasonable doubt, as the prosecution has failed to prove the volume of timber exported in terms of cubic feet (Cf.t), as concluded by the learned trial court vide paras 23 to 25 of the impugned judgment. 43. Still further the gravamen of charge regarding export of excess timber also does not stand proved beyond reasonable doubt, as the prosecution has failed to prove the volume of timber exported in terms of cubic feet (Cf.t), as concluded by the learned trial court vide paras 23 to 25 of the impugned judgment. The learned trial Judge has also noticed the contention raised on behalf of the defence that in order to avoid uneven loading in the railway wagons to the full capacity at times scants are cut into pieces and in that event number of scants would increase, which possibility has also not been ruled out by one of the I.Os, PW-54, Dy.S.P (Retd.), Gurdit Singh, who has also stated during cross examination that he was not able to ascertain the volume of timber exported, which also dents the veracity of the prosecution case, as observed by the learned trial court in para 20 at the end of page 24 and beginning of page 25 of the impugned judgment. Furthermore, PW-38, Shri M.A. Siddique has also admitted the defence version in this regard. PW-50, Shri K.C. Nandwani, who along with PW-38, Shri M.A. Siddique, had conducted joint enquiry on the orders of Hon'ble Chief Minister has also admitted in cross examination that while submitting his report sizes of scants exported could not be ascertained by him. According to PW-5, Shri Jung Bahadur, number of scants actually unloaded could only be ascertained from the unloading register, which was not produced in evidence during trial. He has also stated that delivery register was not available and wagon transfer register and unloading book were also not taken into possession. Above all, PW-54, Dy. S.P (Retd.), Shri Gurdit Singh has categorically admitted that A-1 had also exported timber under permits No. 119, 134, 167 and 203, which are not in dispute. Even as per the record relied upon on behalf of the prosecution timber is shown to have been exported under permit No. 167 vide railway receipt No. 670008. 44. Thus in totality of the findings and on an over all view of the matter the charge relating to export of excess timber or beyond validity period of permits also does not stand established. Point No. 3: Whether A.1 in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy with his coaccused had cut and felled trees numbering 77 from the Govt. 44. Thus in totality of the findings and on an over all view of the matter the charge relating to export of excess timber or beyond validity period of permits also does not stand established. Point No. 3: Whether A.1 in pursuance of the criminal conspiracy with his coaccused had cut and felled trees numbering 77 from the Govt. land comprised in Khasra No. 10 situated in village Chak Dhar with the object to export illicitly cut timber to obtain wrongful gain to himself and wrongful loss to the State of Himachal Pradesh? 45. The charge with regard to criminal conspiracy between A-1 and other accused resulting in illicit felling of 77 trees from the Government forest bearing khasra No. 10 and abutting private land comprised of khasra No. 8 belonging to Ram Parshad Sohta is also not proved in the absence of proof regarding export of excess timber. This head of charge is based mainly at spot inspection and demarcation. There is no direct evidence to establish this charge. The allegation that as many as 77 full grown trees had been illicitly felled without being detected by the ground forest staff, such as Forest Guard and Block Officer, cannot be digested without a pinch of salt. Not even a single damage report is shown to have been issued in this regard. It does not stand to reason that large scale illicit felling as alleged could not be detected till as late as registration of the case. 46. The demarcation to pin point the alleged illicit felling was carried out by PW-9, Shri Jagan Nath, Tehsildar (Retd.), whose report Ex.PW-9/A has also not been found worth credence by the learned trial Judge for the detailed reasons stated vide para 27 at pages 38 to 40 and para 28 of the impugned judgment. 46. The demarcation to pin point the alleged illicit felling was carried out by PW-9, Shri Jagan Nath, Tehsildar (Retd.), whose report Ex.PW-9/A has also not been found worth credence by the learned trial Judge for the detailed reasons stated vide para 27 at pages 38 to 40 and para 28 of the impugned judgment. Point No. 4: Whether A.2 by issuing wrong railway receipts and allowing the export of excess timber under the permits in question and beyond the validity period and A.3 while putting up the notes for issuance of export permits before S.R. Masson acted in contravention of the instructions and allowed the issuance of export permits in favour of A.1 illegally and by virtue of their aforesaid illegal acts, both A.2 and A.3 being public servants by use of corrupt and illegal means or otherwise abusing their position as public servants obtained pecuniary advantage and caused loss to the State of Himachal Pradesh? 47. In the absence of any legal proof to establish points No. 1 to 3, point No. 4 can also not be said to have been proved to fasten guilt against A-2 and A-3 for the offences alleged against them under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Accordingly, the findings returned by the learned trial court on this point can also not be faulted. 48. The irresistible conclusion that emerges out of the above discussion is that the findings returned by the learned trial court under the impugned judgment acquitting the accused are borne out of the evidence on record and there is no lawful cause or basis for any interference with the same. 49. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed.