IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. Appeal No. 270 of 2013 Reserved on: 18.03.2026 Date of Decision: 27.4.2026.

State of H.P. f ...Appellant Versus Surinder Kumar & Ors. ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?¹ No For the ApCpellant : Mr Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General.

For resp ondent No.1 : Ms Anjali Soni Verma, Advocate.

For respondents No.2 & 3 : Ms Sangeeta Vasudeva, Advocate.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 28.12.2012 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra at Dharamshala, District Kangra, H.P. (Learned Trial Court) vide which the respondents (accused before learned Trial Court) were acquitted of the commission of offences punishable under Sections 41 and 42 of Indian Forest Act read with Rules 11 and 20 of Himachal Pradesh Forest Produce Transit (Land

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

Routes) Rules 1978. (HP Forest Rules) (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the police presented a challan before the learned Trial Court against the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act and Rule 20 of the HP Forest Rules. It was asserted that ASI Ashwani Kumar (PW 16), Sarvesh Chand Sharma (PW 1), Jagdish Gautam (PW 11), Kehar Singh, Tarlok Chand, and other police officials had set u p a naka on 13.04.2006 near petrol pump Rait. A vehicle bearing registration No. HP-68- 1060 came from Shahpur at high speed. The driver was signalled to stop. The driver stopped the vehicle at some distance. The driver and two other persons left the vehicle and ran away. The vehicle was checked. Three sleepers and 20 scants of different sizes of ‘Peepal’ were found in the vehicle. Rattan Chand and Feroz Deen were found along with the timber. They revealed during the enquiry that the timber belonged to Mohinder Kumar and Surinder Kumar, Misso was driving the vehicle, and the timber was being transported to Gharoh. Sarvesh Chand Sharma made a statement (Ext. PW 1/A), which was sent to the Police Station, where FIR (Ext. PW 10/B) was registered. SI Ashwani (PW 6) investigated the matter. He prepared the site plan (Ext. PW 16/A), seized the timber and the vehicle vide memo (Ext. PW 1/B) and arrested Surinder, Mohinder, and Rajinder Kumar. Mohinder and Surinder made statements (Ext. PW 1/A and Ext. PW-3/A) that they could get the timber recovered. Mohinder and Surinder led the police to the jungle and recovuered six scants (Ext. P 24 to Ext. P 29), which were seiozed vide memo (Ext. PW 1/E). Surinder and MohinderC also identified a tree that they had felled, whose timber was converted into scants and sleepers. Memo (Ext. PW 1/D) was prepared. The timber was handed over to Sarvesh Chand Sharma on Sapurdari. The site plans (Ext. PW 16/A and HExt. PW 16/C) were prepared. The photographs of the spot (Ext.

PW 16/D to Ext. PW 16/N) were taken. The spot was demarcated, and the report of demarcation (Ext. PW 16/O) was obtained. The truck bearing registration No. HP- 68- 1060 was seized along with the documents vide memo (Ext. PW 5/A). Statements of witnesses were recorded as per their version, and after the completion of the investigation, the challan was prepared and presented before the learned Trial Court.

3. The learned Trial Court found sufficient reasons to summon the accused. When the accused appeared, a notice of accusation was put to them for the commission of an offence punishable under Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act, read with Rules 11 and 20 of the H.P. Forest Rules, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution examined 16 witnesses to prove its case. Sarvesh Chand Sharma (PW1) is the informant and a witness to the