JUDGMENT : SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. The accused faced charges for commission of offences constituted under Section 41, and, under Section 42 of the Indian Forest Act. Upon, the afore drawn charges, the learned trial Court through its verdict made on 03.12.2009, upon, Police Challan No. 305-I/2008/42-III/2008, made an order of acquittal upon the accused. 2. The State of Himachal Pradesh becomes aggrieved from the order of acquittal (supra), and, hence has reared the extant appeal before this Court. 3. Brief facts, necessary for the disposal of the present criminal appeal are on 6.5.2008 the police party headed by SHO Hemant of P.S. gohar were present on a naka in Government Vehicle No. HP-33A-8714 on national highway No. 21, near Pandoh Dam and were checking the vehicles when at about 9.00 p.m., a HRTC bus going from Kullu to Jalandhar, bearing No. HP-34-6098 reached the spot and it was stopped for checking. During the course of checking, when the I.O. reached near seat No. 4, a person was sitting there and near his seat were placed two bags, coloured red and blue. The person got perturbed and on asking disclosed his name as Kalsang son of Ngima, R/o Dehra. The bags in possession of that person were cheked and it was found containing Walnut Bark (Dandasa). The walnut bark was weighed with the scale and it was found 8 kg. The bags alongwith walnut bark were taken into possession and seizure memo was prepared. Rukka was prepared and was sent through Constable Mahinder Kumar No. 242 to the police station and a formal FIR was registered. 4. Bags, Ex.P1 and P-3 carried therein walnut bark, weighing about 7 to 8 kgs. The afore recoveries were made from bus bearing No. HP-34-6098. The accused/respondent as evident from bus ticket No. 563259, and, as embodied in Ex.PW4/A, was, at the relevant time, on aboard the bus supra. He was an occupant of seat No. 4 of bus supra. The bags, Ex.P-1 and P-3 whereins walnut bark weighing about 7-8 kgs, became recovered through recovery memo borne in Ex.PW4/B, and, undisputedly they were not in the vicinity of seat No. 4, and/or, were not found in the vicinity of seat No. 4, seat whereof, at the relevant time occupied by the accused. Contrarily, the afore bags were amongst 5 to 6 bags which were kept near the engine hence in an unlocked condition. Contrarily, the afore bags were amongst 5 to 6 bags which were kept near the engine hence in an unlocked condition. The afore inference becomes drawn from the testimony of PW-4, one Lekh Ram, the conductor of bus supra. Though, PW-4, has in his testification echoed, that he apprised the Investigating Officer concerned, that amongst 5 to 6 bags, as were kept near the engine of the bus supra, also Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-3 were existing. However, the factum of Ex.P-1, and, P-3, hence existing amongst 5 to 6 bags, kept near the engine of the bus supra, and also with obviously Ex.P-1 and P-3, rather not lying in the vicinity of seat No. 4, which was occupied as a passenger, at the relevant time, by the accused, besides when there is no tangible evidence existing on record, in display, that within Ex.P-1 and P-3, there were documents revealing the ownership of exhibits supra, of the accused/respondent. Therefore, the effect of the afore testification, and, of the afore alluded want(s), is that, the accused has not been unflinchingly proven by the prosecution, to be the owner of Ex.P-1 and P-3. Therefore, per se hence the charge founders. 5. Moreover, though, the investigating officer while stepping into the witness box as PW-5, has disclosed, that the accused, had made a confession before him, that Ex.P-1 and P-3 belong to him. However, the afore made incriminatory confession, if any, may not carry any probative vigour, as the Investigating Officer concerned, has not been supported by PW-4, the conductor of the bus, nor also when the Investigating Officer, has not associated any passenger aboard the bus supra, and, in whose presence, the accused made any incriminatory confession to him, especially when there is no evidence about unavailability of the passengers other than the accused inside the bus supra. Therefore, the afore made deposition of PW-5, and, appertaining to the accused making a confession to him, about his ownership of Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-3, cannot be assigned any probative sanctity. Conspicuously, also when even otherwise, as stated supra, the prosecution has not been able to unflinchingly prove, the ownership of Ex.P-1 and P-3 of the accused, through existences within Ex.P-1 and P-3, any authentic documents, rather revealing his owning Ex.P-1 and P-3. 6. Conspicuously, also when even otherwise, as stated supra, the prosecution has not been able to unflinchingly prove, the ownership of Ex.P-1 and P-3 of the accused, through existences within Ex.P-1 and P-3, any authentic documents, rather revealing his owning Ex.P-1 and P-3. 6. For the reasons which have been recorded hereinabove, this Court holds that the learned trial Court has appraised the entire evidence, on record, in a wholesome and harmonious manner, apart therefrom, the analysis of the material, on record, by the learned trial Court, hence, also does not suffer from any gross perversity or absurdity of mis-appreciation, and, non appreciation of germane thereto evidence, on record. 7. Consequently, there is no merit in the extant criminal appeal, and, it is dismissed accordingly. The judgment impugned before this Court is affirmed. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Records be sent back forthwith.