JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. Both, the revisionists/petitioners/convicts, stand, concurrently convicted, by both the learned Courts below, vis-a-vis, the charges framed, under, Sections 465, 471, 420 read with Section 120-B, IPC, and, consequent therewith sentences, of, imprisonment, and, also sentence(s), of fine, stood imposed, upon, them. They are aggrieved therefrom, hence, cast an onslaught thereon, by theirs instituting, the, instant criminal revision petition, before this Court. 2. In brief, the prosecution case is that on the intervening night of 15.3.2005, at about 1.30 a.m., at place Sawmill at Chajpur, Tehsil Jubbal, on the direction of DFO, Rohru, the Range Officer, while being accompanied by forest staffs as well as police officials has raided the said sawmill, which was unauthorizedly being run by accused Kundan Klanta, during the odd hours of night. During the raid, accused failed to produce the necessary permit to run the sawmill and, even the documents relating to entire timbers lying in sawmill. Accused namely Randhir Singh Chauhan, who at that time was also serving in the police department as ASI has also reached at the spot and claimed the ownership of a few timber, however, even he could not show any relevant document against 42 slippers of Devdar and 86 planks of kail, which are lying in the truck bearing registration No. HP-07-5185. That about 10 slippers of kail and 135 planks of Kail were lying within the premises of sawmill machine. The driver of said truck was found sleeping inside the truck and when he was asked to produce the document of vehicle, and, licence, even failed to produce the same by explaining that they are lying with RTO, Shimla. That on 15.3.2005 at about 10 a.m., post raid verification has been conducted by the DFO, Rohru, who then directed the Range Officer to lodge the FIR with police department. On the basis of written complaint made by the range forest officer, the matter was reported to the P.P. Sarswati Nagar, to which FIR No.17/05 of 15.3.2005, for the commission of alleged offences was jotted down. The investigating agency set into motion, 3. On conclusion of the investigations, into, the offences, allegedly committed by the accused, a report, under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was prepared, and, filed before the learned trial Court. 4. The investigating agency set into motion, 3. On conclusion of the investigations, into, the offences, allegedly committed by the accused, a report, under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was prepared, and, filed before the learned trial Court. 4. The accused/convicts/petitioners, stood charged, by the learned trial Court, for, theirs committing, offences punishable under Sections 465, 420, 469, 471 read with Section 120-B of the IPC. In proof of the prosecution case, the prosecution examined 30 witnesses. On conclusion of recording, of, the prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused, under, Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, were, recorded by the learned trial Court, wherein, the accused claimed innocence, and, pleaded false implication, in, the case. 5. On an appraisal of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court, returned findings of conviction, upon, the accused/convicts/petitioners herein, for, theirs committing, offences, punishable under Sections, 465, 468, 471, 420 read with Section 120-B of the IPC. In appeal(s), preferred therefrom, by the accused/petitioners herein, before, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge concerned, the, latter affirmed, the, apposite findings of conviction, and, also the, consequent therewith imposition, of, sentence(s), upon, them, as borne, in the judgment, pronounced, by the learned trial Court. 6. The convicts/accused/petitioners herein, stand aggrieved, by the concurrent findings of conviction, recorded, against them, by the learned Courts below. The learned counsel(s), appearing for the accused/petitioners herein, have, concertedly and vigorously contended, qua the findings of conviction, recorded by both the learned Courts below, standing not, based on a proper appreciation of the evidence on record, rather, theirs standing sequelled by gross mis-appreciation, by them, of the material on record. Hence, they contend qua the concurrent findings, of conviction hence warranting reversal by this Court, in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, and, theirs being replaced, by, findings of acquittal. 7. On the other hand, the learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the respondent/State, has, also with considerable force, and, vigour, also contended qua the findings of conviction, recorded, by both the learned Courts below, rather standing based, on a mature and balanced appreciation, by them, of the evidence on record, and, theirs not necessitating any interference, rather theirs meriting vindication. 8. This Court with the able assistance, of, the learned counsel on either side, has, with studied care and incision, evaluated the entire evidence on record. 9. 8. This Court with the able assistance, of, the learned counsel on either side, has, with studied care and incision, evaluated the entire evidence on record. 9. Significantly, though, co-accused Mehar Chand alias Beju, was charged for the commission, of, offence under Rule 15 of H.P. River Rules, 1971 (lateron amended charges, vis-a-vis, contravention, of, Rule 14/156 of H.P. River Rules, 1971, read with Rule 10 of Forest (Sale Timber) Rules, 1960, and, punishable, under, Rule 17 of Rules 1971, as framed, under Sections 41/42, 45 and 51 of Forest Act, 1971, (a) and, co-accused Kundan Klanta (now deceased), was, charged, for, an offence punishable, under, Section 379 of the IPC, (b) whereas, petitioners herein/accused/convicts, were, charged, for, commission of offences punishable, under, Sections 465, 420, 468, 471, read with Section 120-B of the IPC. However, the learned trial Court had recorded findings, of, acquittal, vis-, co- accused Kundan Klanta, qua the charge, framed, under Section 379 of the IPC, (c) and, the failure of the State, to rear an appeal there-against, before the Appellate Court, constrains, as, conclusion, vis-a-vis, the afore findings, of acquittal, hence, acquiring conclusivity, vis-a-vis, the afore formulated charged offence. Further corollary thereof, is qua the illicit timber, purportedly seized, at the sawmill concerned, being not illicitly felled, from, the Govt. forest, (d) rather hence its occurrence, at, the sawmill concerned, being a sequel, of, T.D. permit, borne in Ex.PW4/G, standing issued, vis-a-vis, accused Randhir Singh. Accused Randhir Singh, challenged the concurrent verdicts, of, conviction pronounced against him, through, his constituting a revision petition bearing Cr.R. No. 23 of 2017, before this Court. However, since, he expired, during the pendency, of, the afore criminal revision, before this Court, thereupon, the afore criminal revision petition, stood dismissed, as, becoming abated. Consequently, it would not be befitting, to go, into the factum, vis-a-vis, the findings recorded against him, qua, his forging the signatures, of, one Roshan Lal, upon, EX.PW1/A, holding any tenacity or not. Even otherwise, with, PW-1 Roshan Lal, in his cross-examination, meteing a dis-affirmative answer, to, a dis-affirmative suggestion, vis-a-vis, his not applying, for, grant of T.D., permit qua him, does beget an inference, of his, making an application, for grant of T.D. permit, (e) and, hence, his ascription, vis-a-vis, co-accused Randhir Singh (now deceased) qua his forging his signatures, also rather thereupon becoming falsified. Further he has in his examination-in-chief, made a testification, vis-a-vis, his being beguiled, by co-accused deceased Randhir Singh, to, pretextually append his signatures, upon, Ex.PW1/A, whereupon, also his ascription, qua, Randhir Singh forging his signatures, appear to becomes falisfied. 10. Be that as it may, the issuance of T.D. permit, by the accused concerned, is contended to be beyond, the, Rules, appertaining therewith, (i) given the accused concerned, hence, applying, for, allotment of T.D. permit, vis-a-vis, him, (ii) for, satiating, his requirement, of, renovating his house, (iii) and, when after verification, it being found qua, his, not within the territorial limits, of, the range concerned, holding any residential house, thereupon, the afore grant, rather becoming falsified. However, the afore charge framed against the accused concerned, rather appears to be highly pretextual, (iv) as, even if the accused concerned, had made, a, false projection qua his requiring timber, for, repairing or renovating his house, despite his not holding, any residential house, within the territorial limits, of, the range concerned, (v) thereupon, also with there being no rule prohibiting, the, accused concerned, to, upon, his applying for allotment, of, timber to him, for renovating, or repairing the house, and, the afore grant being falsified, against his, yet, using, the, allotted timber, hence, for, constructing a new house. Consequently, when rather the afore evidence exists, on record, qua his holding land, within, the territorial limits, of, the range concerned, hence, the afore purported falsity, in his application, would not, constrain this Court, to hold him or the forest officers concerned, guilty, of, the charge framed against them. (vi) Conspicuously, when no evidence also exists, that, the allotment, of timber, for, construction a new house, is, in a quantum lesser than, the, allotment, of, timber, for repairing, an, old house. 10. (vi) Conspicuously, when no evidence also exists, that, the allotment, of timber, for, construction a new house, is, in a quantum lesser than, the, allotment, of, timber, for repairing, an, old house. 10. Even otherwise, though the forest officer, are, proven by the depositions of PW-9, the Patwari Halqua concerned, at the relevant time, and, of, PW-10, the Secretary of the Panchayat concerned, hence at the relevant time, to, ensure, the, making(s) through them, the, requisite verification, and, when, the afore verification, is, required, vis-a-vis, the rules, hence, to be made, by, the afore, (b) thereupon, the afore verificatory process, is, construbale, to stand bonafidely believed, hence, by, the, forest officials concerned, and, thereupon, in, the forest officials meteing credence, vis-a-vis, the ordained verificatory process, as, engaged into by PW-9, and, by PW- 10, also, does not attract, vis-a-vis, the forest officials concerned, hence, any penal inculpability. 11. For the foregoing reasons, the instant criminal revision petition is allowed, and, the both the petitioners, namely, Balak Ram, and, Payare Lal are acquitted, vis-a-vis, the charged offences. In sequel, the judgments impugned before this Court, hence, convicting the afore petitioners, for, the charged offences are set aside. The fine amount, if any, deposited by the accused/petitioners, be refunded, to them. Their personal and surety bonds also stand discharged. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Records be sent back forthwith.