SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2007 Supreme(HP) 381

HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
KULDIP SINGH, J.
State of H.P.
Versus
Anoop Kumar and etc.
Cri. Appeal Nos. 296, 367 to 369 of 2000
Decided on : 24-9-2007.

Advocates appeared:
M. L. Chauhan, Addl. A.G., for Appellant; Vinay Thakur, M. L. Sharma, Navlesh Verma, for Respondents.

The proper proof of evidence and adherence to the limitation period are crucial in criminal prosecutions.

Headnote:

Forgery - Indian Forest Act - Sections 41, 42, 468, I.P.C. - Section 468, Cr. P. C. - Section 473, Cr. P. C. - State of Punjab v. Sarwan Singh (AIR 1981 SC 1054) - Tara Dutt and another v. State of Himachal Pradesh (1998 (1) Shim LC 365)

Fact of the Case:

The case involved the prosecution of individuals for illegal transportation of timber. The accused were charged under Sections 41, 42 of the Indian Forest Act and Section 468, I.P.C. The trial court convicted the accused, but the appeals were accepted by the Sessions Judge, leading to the State filing the present appeals.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the handwriting expert report had not been proved as per law, and therefore, the forgery allegations against one of the accused could not be sustained. Additionally, the court noted that the trial court had taken cognizance of the offence after the expiry of the limitation period, leading to the dismissal of the appeals.

Issues: The issues involved the validity of the forgery allegations and the impact of the limitation period on the prosecution of the accused.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for proper proof of evidence, such as the handwriting expert report, and highlighted the significance of the limitation period in criminal prosecutions. The court cited precedents such as State of Punjab v. Sarwan Singh and Tara Dutt and another v. State of Himachal Pradesh to support its decision.

Final Decision: All appeals were dismissed, and the bail bonds furnished by the respondents were discharged.

Judgement

JUDGMENT :- This judgment shall dispose of Criminal Appeal Nos. 296, 367, 368 and 369 of 2000, which have arisen from common judgment dated 19-1-2000 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Solan in Criminal Appeal Nos. 15-S/10 of 1999, 16-S/10 of 1999, 17-S/10 of 1999 and 18-S/10 of 1999 respectively.

2. The facts, in brief, are that five persons, namely, Sukh Ram alias Sukh Pal, Mangal Dev, Gita Ram, Babu Ram and Anoop Kumar were prosecuted. Anoop Kumar was charged under Sections 379, 420, 468, I.P.C. and Sections 41, 42 of the Indian Forest Act, Mangal Dev, Sukh Ram, Babu Ram and Gita Ram were charged under Sections 41, 42 of Indian Forest Act. The prosecution case is that on 16-11-1990 at about 10.45 a.m. A.S.I. Gurdyal Singh, Incharge, Traffic Barrier, Parwanoo along with H. C. Balak Ram, Constable Hans Raj, Constable Prem Dass and Constable Prabhat Chand were checking vehicles in routine manner at Parwanoo Barrier. Truck No. HP-14-0540 came there and was stopped, four persons were sitting in the cabin and three persons were sitting in the back portion of the truck which was loaded with gunny bags. The truck was checked and it was found that under gunny bags of apples there were 46 sleepers of Devdar. None of the occupants of the truck including the driver could show the permit for carrying timber. One person, who was sitting in the cabin of the truck, ran away towards Kalka, later on his name was disclosed as Anoop Kumar. Mangal Dev, Raj Kumar and Shobha Ram were sitting in the back portion of the truck. A.S.I. called from Forest Check Post, Parwanoo, Sunder Lal, Deputy Ranger, Ramesh Chand, Guard, Jagdish Chand, Lekh Ram, Timber Watcher. On the basis of this information, Ruka was sent to Police Station, Parwanoo for registration of the case under Sections 41, 42 of the Indian Forest Act and consequently F.I.R. was registered, 46 sleepers of Devdar were taken into possession.

3. It was revealed during investigation that Anoop Kumar prepared fictitious G.R. in the name of Kisan Bhai Goods Carrier, specimen handwriting and signatures of Anoop Kumar were taken. During investigation it was found that 46 sleepers were stolen which were owned by Partap Singh and these were being illegally transported to Haryana and Punjab. It was also revealed during investigation that spare parts of vehicle No. HIS-6070 owned by Shobha Ram were also being carried in the truck, Shobha Ram and Raj Kumar had no connection with the commission of offence and no challan was filed against them.

4. The prosecution examined 22 witnesses. The statements under Section 313, Cr.P.C. were recorded. The learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Solan on 19-5-1999 convicted Sukh Ram, Mangal Dev, Babu Ram, Anoop Kumar and Gita Ram under Sections 41, 42 of the Indian Forest Act and Anoop Kumar was also convicted under Section 468, I.P.C., each accused was sentenced under Sections 41, 42 of the Indian Forest Act for simple imprisonment of three months with fine of Rs. 500/-. Anoop Kumar was additionally sentenced simple imprisonment of three months and fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 468, I.P.C. In default of payment of fine further simple imprisonment of 15 days was awarded. All convicts filed separate appeals, except Sukh Ram and Gita Ram who filed joint appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 16-S/10 of 1999. The learned Sessions Judge decided all appeals by common judgment dated 19-1-2000 and accepted the appeals, hence the State has filed the present appeals.

5. I have heard the learned Additional Advocate General for the State and learned counsel for the respondents and gone through the record.

6. The prosecution case is that offence was allegedly committed on 16-11-1990 but cognizance was taken by learned trial Judge on 15-7-1992. The accused were acquitted under Section 379, I.P.C. but were convicted under Sections 41, 42, of the Indian Forest Act and Anoop Kumar was also convicted under Section 468, I.P.C. The allegations against Anoop Kumar are that he forged G.R


Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top