2026 Supreme(Online)(HP) 2490

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KAINTHLA
GOAPL CHAND – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF HP – Respondent
CR.R/413/2015

Conviction for criminal trespass and forest encroachment cannot rely solely on admission of possession; the prosecution must prove specific intent for IPC 447 and mandatory local publication of notifications for the Forest Act. Furthermore, FIRs for forest encroachment under 10 bighas are legally impermissible.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 441 and 447 - Indian Forest Act, 1927 - Sections 29, 30, 31, 32 and 33 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 313, 397 and 401 - Encroachment of forest land - Conviction based on admission of possession - Ingredients of criminal trespass - Necessity of proving intent to intimidate, insult or annoy - Mere entry resulting in annoyance is insufficient to attract Section 441 (Paras 22-24).

(B) Indian Forest Act, 1927 - Sections 30, 31 and 33 - Valid prosecution for contravention of forest notifications - Mandatory requirement of issuing notification in Official Gazette and publishing a translation in the local vernacular in conspicuous places in the neighbourhood of the forest - Absence of evidence regarding local publication renders the provisions of Section 33 inapplicable (Paras 25-28).

(C) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 397 - Scope of revisional jurisdiction - Limited to rectifying patent defects, errors of jurisdiction or law, or perversity - Revisional court is not an appellate court and shall not re-analyse evidence unless there is a gross miscarriage of justice or the finding is perverse (Paras 13-17).

(D) FIR registration - Encroachment of government/forest land - Where encroachment is less than 10 bighas, an FIR is not lodgable in accordance with established judicial directions (Paras 19-21). (E) Admissibility of Statement - Section 313 CrPC - Admission of possession of land is not sufficient for conviction if the statutory ingredients of the charged offences are not satisfied (Para 29).

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was convicted by the trial court and subsequently by the appellate court for encroaching upon unprotected forest land measuring 9-0-2 bighas, primarily based on an admission of possession made in a statement under Section 313 of the CrPC. A revision petition was filed on the grounds that the encroachment was below the 10-bigha threshold required for lodging an FIR, and that the essential legal ingredients for criminal trespass and forest law violations were not met.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the FIR was unlodgable as the encroachment area was less than 10 bighas. It was further held that the prosecution failed to prove the specific intent required for criminal trespass under the IPC and failed to demonstrate that the mandatory publication of the forest notification in the local vernacular had occurred in the vicinity of the forest land.

Issues: Whether the admission of possession of forest land is sufficient for conviction under Section 447 of the IPC and Section 33 of the Forest Act, and whether an FIR can be legally lodged for an encroachment of less than 10 bighas.

Ratio Decidendi: Conviction cannot be sustained solely on an admission of possession if the legal ingredients of the offence are not satisfied. For criminal trespass, the prosecution must prove specific intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult, or annoy. For forest offences, strict adherence to the procedure of notification and local publication is mandatory. Additionally, administrative guidelines limiting FIRs to encroachments exceeding 10 bighas must be followed.

Result: Revision allowed; judgment of conviction and order of sentence set aside; accused acquitted.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

2026:HHC:17122

Whether approved for reporting?¹Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. No.

Cr. Revision No. 413 of 2015

Gopal Chand ...Petitioner

Versus

State of H.P. ...Respondent

For the Petitioner : Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate.

For the Respondent/State : Mr. Prashant Sen, Deputy Advocate General.

Coram

Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge.

Reserved on: 2.4.2026

Date of Decision: 15.5.2026.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 2.11.2015, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. (learned Appellate Court) vide which judgment of conviction dated 30.5.2014 and order of sentence dated 31.5.2014, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. (learned Trial Court) were partly upheld.

(The 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 rHise to the present appeal are that the police filed a challan against the accused before the learned Trial Court for the commission of offences punishable under Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 32 and 33 of the Indian Forest Act. It was asserted that the accused had encroached upon the unprotected forest (UPF) in Mohal Kun, bearing Khasra No. 1/2, 255/10 and 255/9, measuring 10-9-06 bighas. He admitted the encroachment in the afÏd avit filed in File No. 102, dated 29.7.2002. Hence, a complaint was filed with the police for taking action against the accused as per the law. The police registered the FIR (Ex.PW6/B). HC Pawan Kumar (PW6) investigated the matter. He visited the spot and prepared the site plan (Ex.PW6/A). Manohar Lal (PW2) demarcated the land and found that the accused had encroached upon Khasra No.1/2, 255/9 and 255/10, measuring 9-0-2 bighas in Mohal Kun. He issued the report of demarcation (Ex.PW2/A). HC Pawan Kumar seized the record and recorded the statements of witnesses as per the version. The challan was prepared and presented before the learned Trial Court after the completion of the investigation.

3. The learned Trial Court found suHfÏcient reasons to summon the accused. When the accused appeared, a notice of accusation was put to him for the commission of offences punishable under Section 447 of the IPC and Sections 32 and 33 of the Indian Forest Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution examined six witnesses to prove its case. Dharam Singh (PW1) was posted as the Range OfÏcer who made a complaint to the police. Manohar Lal (PW2) demarcated the land. Chint Ram (PW3) and Durga Dass, Patwari (PW4), were present during the demarcation. Hari Singh (PW5) forwarded the application to the police. HC Pawan (PW6) investigated the matter.

5. The accused, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., admitted that he is in possession of Khasra No. 1/02, 255/09 and 255/10. He claimed that the house and the field had existed since the time of his ancestor, and he had not encroached upon any land. He admitted that he had filed an application for the regularisation of encroachment. He did not produce any evidence in his defence.

6. Learned Trial Court held that Hthe statements of prosecution witnesses proved that the accused had encroached upon the Government land. The accused also admitted this fact in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. Therefore, the learned Trial Court convicted the accused of the commission of offences punishable under Section 447 of IPC and Sections 32 and 33 of the Indian Forest Act and sentenced him as under: -

7. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court, the accused filed an appeal which was decided by the learned Sessions Judge, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. (learned Appellate Court). The learned Appellate Court concurred with the findings recorded b

Click Here to Read the rest of this document