JUDGMENT :

By way of instant criminal appeal under Section 378 of the Cr.PC., challenge has been laid to the judgment of acquittal dated 20.5.2010, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Kullu, District Kullu, H.P., in Criminal appeal No. 6 of 2010, reversing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.2.2010 and 23.2.2010, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lahaul- Spiti at Kullu, Himachal Pradesh in Criminal Case No. 428-I of 2005/ 51-III of 2008, whereby the learned trial court below though acquitted one of the accused namely Krishan Chand, but found the respondent-accused Yub Raj, guilty of having committed offence of violating Rule 20 of the HP Forest Produce (Transit Land Routes) Rules, 1978 (in short ‘the rules’) read with Section 42 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (in short ‘the Act’) and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-.

2. Briefly, stated facts as emerge from the record are that on 22.4.2005, persons namely Tejaswi Ram Bharti, Arvind Kumar and Ajay Kumar informed the police that they have received secrete information regarding the transportation of timber at Dohra Nullah. After having received aforesaid information, ASI Gian Chand (PW7), HC Bhagat Ram (PW4) alongwith all the above named informers went towards the Dohra Nulah and found that 3-4 persons were loading the timber in Maruti Van bearing registration No. HP 33 0551. After having seen police, persons allegedly loading the timber in the Maruti Van fled away from the spot. Informer namely Arvind Kumar identified one of the persons as Raj Kumar. Though efforts were made to search persons allegedly loading the timber in the vehicle in question, but none could be apprehended on the spot. Nine “slippers” of different sizes of timber were found inside the vehicle. After completion of the necessary codal formalities, police lodged FIR Ext.PW4/B and ASI Gian Chand, who prepared the site plan Ext.PW7/B conducted the investigation. On the basis of investigation, respondent accused was arrested, who allegedly made disclosure statement Ext.PW2/A to the police that he could show the place from where timber was being loaded in the vehicle. After completion of the investigation, police presented challan before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lahaul Spiti at Kullu, who having found prima facie case against the respondent accused Yub Raj and co-accused Krishan Chand put notice of accusation to them for their having committed offences punishable under the Act, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

3. Prosecution with a view to prove its case examined as many as eight witnesses, whereas despite sufficient opportunity, no evidence in defence ever came to be led on record by the accused named in the FIR. Both the accused in their statements recorded 313 CrPC denied the case of the prosecution in toto and claimed themselves to be innocent.

4. Learned court below on the basis of evidence led on record by the prosecution though acquitted the co-accused Krishan Chand but held the respondent accused Yub Raj guilty of having committed offence under Section 42 of the Act and accordingly, convicted and sentence him as per description given herein above.

5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, respondent accused preferred an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Kullu, H.P., who vide judgment dated 20.5.20210, accepted the appeal and acquitted the respondent-accused. In the aforesaid background, respondent-State has approached this Court in the instant appeal, praying therein for conviction of the accused after setting aside the judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned first appellate Court.

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

7. Having perused evidence led on record by the respective parties vis-à-vis reas