Arun Komar Goel J.(Oral): Heard learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance records of the case have also been examined.

2. The respondent was prosecuted under section 33 of the Indian Forest (Act for having allegedly encroached upon the demarcated forest D Gohach C-III, measuring 6 bighas. This fact was noticed by PW-1 Gurcharan Singh, forest guard while he was on patrol duty on 1st September, 1988. At such point of time, PW-1 Gurcharan Singh forest guard was accompanied by Patwan PW-4 Pratap Singh. When questioned, the respondent is alleged to have admitted before PW-1 having encroached upon Government land when damage report was prepared vide Ex.PW-1/A and Iqbal Nama was recorded vide memo Ex.PW-1/B, but the respondent is stated to have declined to sign the said Iqbal Name (confessional statement). PW-4 prepared the tatima of the encroached area vide memo E.X.PW-4/A as also delivered the copy of jamabandi Ex.PW-4/B. Because the respondent had declined to sign the Iqbal Nama, therefore, PW-1 reported the matter to Block Officer (PW-3) who after verifying the spot as reported by the former, issued notice Ex.PW-2/A to the respondent. By means of this notice, the respondent was required to pay the damages. Since the latter refused the payment, in these circumstances a case in 4er section 33 of the Indian Forest Act was initiated against the respondent before the trial court.

3. After the respondent had appeared, the trial court was satisfied on perusal of challan papers filed before it that there are circumstances for proceeding against the respondent under section 33 of the Indian Forest Act, therefore, notice of accusation under section 251 of the Criminal Procedure Code was issued to him. The respondent pleaded not guilty to the notice and claimed trial. After recording the statements of five PWs and after taking into account the damage report Ex.PW-1/A, prepared by PW-1, Ex.PW-1/B Iqbal Nama for signing which die respondent is stated to have refused, tatima : Ex.PW-4/A prepared by the Patwari and Jamabandi Ex.PW-4/B, has acquitted the respondent of the aforesaid offences, hence this appeal at the instance of State wherein the acquittal of the respondent has been questioned.

4. In addition to the reasoning adopted by the trial court which this Court finds to be wholly justified for acquitting the respondent. Another material ground for acquittal of the respondent is that demarcation in this case had admittedly been given by the Patwari Halqua. In this behalf, reference can usefully be made to the provisions of section 107 of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act which defines the powers of revenue officers to define boundaries and classes, of revenue officers have been defined under section 7 of the Act For ready reference, both these provisions of Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1953 are reproduced herein below:- S.7, Classes of Revenue Officers-1. There shall be the following classes of Revenue Officers, (a) The Financial Commissioner, (b) The Commissioner, (c) The Collector, (d) The Assistant Collector of the first grade. (e) The Assistant Collector of the Second grade. (Omitted)

2. The Deputy Commissioner of a district shall be the Collector thereof.

3. The State Government may appoint any Assistant Commissioner, Extra-Assistant Commissioner or Tehsildar to be an Assistant Collector of the first or of the second grade, as it thinks fit, and any Naib-Tehsildar to be an Assistant Collector of the Second grade.

4. Appointment under sub-section (3) shall be by notification and may be of a person specially be name or by virtue of his office or of more persons than one by any description sufficient for their identification.

5. Subject to the provisions of this Act, the jurisdiction of the Financial Commissioner extends to the whole of the Himachal Pradesh and of Commissioners and of the Collectors and Assistant Collectors to the divisions and districts respectively, in which they arc for the time being emplo