M. R. Verma, J.: This is an appeal against the judgment dated 22.4.1993 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu whereby the accused-respondents (hereinafter referred to as "the accused") have been acquitted of the accusations under Sees. 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act.

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 30.03.1991 when AS1 Harbhajan Singh alongwith Range Officer, Hurla and few other police and forest officials were on patrol duty at Bhuntar, a secret information was received that truck No. HIE 1316 was illegally transporting sleepers from Sarsari side. The said truck was intercepted and on checking it was found carrying 15 deodar sleepers of the size of 10 x 10" x 5" without any permit nor the sleepers were hammer marked. A case was, therefore, registered against the accused under Secs. 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act on the basis of ruqua Ex. PW-2/A prepared and sent by ASI Harbhajan Singh at Police Station, Kullu vide FIR Ex.PW-2/B. On completion of investigation and on being satisfied about the alleged commission of the offence by the accused, the officer-incharge. Police Station, Kullu submitted a charge-sheet against the accused, who came to be tried by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu. By the impugned judgment, the learned trial Magistrate acquitted the accused of he accusations. Hence this appeal.

3. I have heard the learned Deputy Advocate General and the learned counsel for the accused.

4. It may be pointed out at the very outset that suggestions put to the prosecution witnesses in their cross examinations, the defence of the accused is that the truck in question was parked due to mechanical defect and an entry was accordingly made in the Log book and thus it was not plying at the relevant time and that the case against the accused has been made out due to political pressure/grouse and the timber which was already lying with the police" had been made the case property in this case to involve the accused in the commission of the offences. There is no dispute that during the course of investigation the documents of the truck in question were taken in possession by the Police vide Memo Ex. PW-l/B and such documents are the Registration Certificate, Route Permit (part-B), Insurance Certificate and Log Book. Despite having taken" these documents in possession these were not tendered/proved in evidence. A photo copy of the Log Book, after it was ordered to be released by the Court to the-accused, has been placed on the record by the Investigating Agency and forms part of the charge-sheet submitted against the accused. Entry in the said copy against Sr. No. 127 reveals that there are no entries about the plying of this vehicle after 3.1.1991 and it was allegedly seized on 30.3.1991. It is, therefore, unbelieable that had truck in question been in road -worthy condition it was not plying till 30th of March, 1991, when it was allegedly seized.

5. I have minutely gone through the Ruqa Ex. PW-2/A and the Charge-sheet submitted by the police. These do not aver anywhere that the Lok Book of the truck was not complete and it was plying without completion of the Log Book and that by not making the entry in the Log book about its plying on 30.3.1991 on the concerned road the accused had in any manner attempted to fabricate the evidence in his favour that the truck was not plying on the relevant date. Thus, not making of the entries for such a long period in the Log Book is a circumstance from which it can be inferred that the truck was not being plied after 3.1.1991 which lends credibility to the defence taken by the accused that the truck was mechanically defective since 3.1.1991 and was not plying since then.

6. It is the case of the prosecution itself that the truck was allegedly intercepted on 30.3.1991 at about 10.30 PM and the Ruqa Ex. PW-2/A was prepared at 11 PM on the same date and the F.I.R. appears to have been registered at the Police Station on the same day at 11.30 PM.