Vivek Singh Thakur, J.

Petitioners were convicted under Sections 41 and 42 of Indian Forest Act by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.1, Amb, District Una, H.P. in Criminal Case No.17-III-2000 vide judgment dated 22.11.2006 for transporting forest produce (timber) in violation of Rules 5 and 11 of H.P. Forest Produce Transit (Land Routs) Rules, 1978 (here-in-after referred to as ‘Transit Rules’) after sunset and before sunrise in truck No. HP-19-6311 without any hammer mark or permit to transport the same. Petitioners were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

2. In appeal preferred by petitioners, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Una vide judgment dated 5.9.2008 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 12 of 2006 and Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 2006 upheld conviction but modified sentence to fine only and sentenced them with fine of Rs.2000/- each for violation of Rules 5 and 11 of Transit Rules and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. Hence, present revision petition.

3. I have heard learned counsel for parties and have also gone through the record.

4. Learned counsel for petitioners contended that lower courts below have failed to take notice of material contradictions and major discrepancies in statements of PW-2 Balbir Singh, PW-4 Gurdev Singh, PW-8 Gian Chand, PW-9 Harpal Singh and PW-13 Onkar Singh adversely affecting genesis of prosecution story raising doubt about presence of these witnesses at the place and time as claimed by prosecution rendering search and seizure suspicious. He argued that there are contradictions about manner of arrival of police and forest officials on the spot, timing of arrival, setting up Naka, return to Police Post and number of logs seized. He further contended that an independent witness i.e. driver of Jeep used by forest officials to reach on the spot was neither cited as witness nor examined in the Court for which adverse inference against prosecution in inevitable and also that independent witnesses cited and examined by prosecution have not supported the case of prosecution which renders veracity of official witnesses doubtful.

5. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that as per PW-2, he was summoned by Deputy Ranger from Saloh Beri whereas PW-4 denied the said fact and according to PW-4 forest officials reached on the spot before police whereas other witnesses deposed that they reached together at the spot. He also pointed out contradictions in timing about reaching and leaving the spot and police post and also regarding presence of officials in police post. He further contended that during cross-examination by Public Prosecutor hostile independent witnesses PW-1 and PW-3 were suggested that 66 logs were recovered by police from truck in question whereas as per recovery Memo. Ex. PW-4/A recovery of 73 logs was shown. According to him for want of support and corroboration by independent witnesses examined by prosecution and also for withholding examination an independent witness i.e. Jeep driver who was present on spot, testimony of official witnesses ought to have not been relied by courts below, particularly when there are material contradictions and major discrepancies in their statements rendering whole prosecution story a farce. He submitted that learned Courts below despite raising specific contention on aforesaid points, have not answered the same warranting interference of this Court.

6. On the contrary, learned Deputy Advocate General supported impugned judgment for reasons based by courts below for conviction of petitioners. He submitted that PW-3 Parkash Chand and PW-7 Vikram Singh were related to petitioners and therefore their refrain from supporting prosecution case cannot be considered fatal to prosecution. It is further contended that other contradictions and dis