Surjit Singh, J.@mdashState has appealed against the judgment dated 28th March, 2003 of learned Special Judge (Forests), Shimla, whereby Respondents Hira Singh and others, hereinafter called accused, have been acquitted of charge, under Sections 379, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act, and Section 5(2) of the revention of Corruption Act, 1947.
2. A case was registered, vide FIR Ex. P.W.-52/B, when in the course of checking of the record of Railway Station, Dharampur, it was noticed that timber, in excess of the quantity mentioned in Export Permit No. 12/82-83, Ex. P.W.-2/E, had been transported through Railways.
3. Investigation of the case revealed that applications, in the names of 28 persons, residing in villages Dasholi, Pujarli, Chuhad and Kelvi Lohana, were submitted by accused Hira Singh and his partners Nika Ram and Rai Singh, to the Forest Department, seeking permission to fell the trees, on the land described in those applications. Orders were passed by the Divisional Forest Officer concerned, for demarcation of the land and the marking of the trees, standing thereon. Demarcation was carried out by accused Gairoo Ram, Field Kanoongo and accused Hari Dass, also a Field Kanoongo. On the basis of the demarcation given by them, trees were marked by forest officials, namely accused Hari Om Prakash Gupta, Block Officer, Beli Ram, Forest Guard and Amar Singh, also a Forest Guard. Certificates were appended on the lists of trees by the above-named Field Kanoongos, as also accused Hari Om Prakash Gupta and Daulat Ram, that no tree had been marked on Government land and all the trees stood on private land, described in the applications. On the basis of the certification by the above-named revenue officials and forest officials, who are accused herein, DFO granted felling permission, in respect of 436 trees, out of which 119 were of Deodar and the remaining 317 of Kail. The trees were expected to yield 33867.68 cft of timber. After the passing of felling orders, accused Hari Singh and his partner Nika Ram (deceased) and Rai Singh, another partner, who is also an accused, felled the trees with the help of their Manager Mohan Singh, also an accused. Felled trees were converted into scants and an application was submitted to the Divisional Forest Officer, alongwith the lists of timber, seeking permission to export the timber.
4. Initially a list of 3963 scants was submitted. Forest officials, accused herein, certified that the timber had been extracted from the marked trees and no illicit felling had taken place on the Government land or in private land, other than the land mentioned in the applications. On the basis of that recommendation, Permit No. 12/82-83, Ex. P.W.-2/E was issued. The permit authorized export of 3782 scants. Within the validity period 3890 scants had been exported. For the remaining 73 scants extension was sought, which was granted, vide permit Ex. P.W.-2/G.
5. Another list of timber, consisting of 1718 scants, was submitted subsequently, seeking permission to export that timber also. Similar certificates were appended by the forest officials, accused herein, as were appended in the case of 3963 scants, aforesaid. Export Permit, bearing No. 25/82-83, Ex. P.W.-2/A, was issued, which was valid upto 25th September, 1982. Validity period was extended upto 30th November, 1982, vide permit No. 80/82-83.
6. Yet another list of 1985 scants was submitted to the Divisional Forest Officer, for permission to export the said scants. Forest officials, accused herein, appended certificates of similar nature, as in the case of other two lists. Permit No. 70/82/83, valid upto 30th November, 1982 was issued.
7. Investigation revealed that timber had been carried by Trucks from the site of felling to Railway Station Summer Hill and Railway Station Dharampur, from where it was exported outside the State, through Railways. Railway receipts, pertaining to the timber, in question, were seized. Against Permit No. 12/82-83, Ex. P.W.-2/E, 4003 scants were exported, against the permitted number of 3963 and, thus, there was excess export of 40 scants.
8. To ascertain the source of excess timber, Investigating Agency got the land, described in the applications and the adjoining land, demarcated from P.W.-33 Madan Singh, Naib Tehsildar, who gave reports Ex. P.W.-33/A, Ex. P.W.-33/D, Ex. P.W.-33/F and Ex. P.W.-33/J. These were separate reports, in respect of each of the four villages, where felling had been allowed. On the basis of demarcation given by P.W.-33 Madan Singh, Naib Tehsildar, stumps of the felled trees were counted. 215 stumps were found on Government forest/land, adjoining the private land. Lists of stumps are Ex. P.W.-4/A-1 and Ex. P.W.-4/A-2. These lists were prepared by P.W.-4 Saran Dass, Block Officer, who accompanied P.W.-33 Madan Singh, at the time of demarcation.
9. Investigation further revealed that signatures/thumb impression of some of the purported applicants (private land owners) were not genuine. Specimen thumb impressions/signatures of the applicants as also accused Hari Singh and his partner Nika Ram were taken. The same were sent to the Fingerprint Bureau, Phillaur, for comparison with the purported thumb impressions of the applicants, and also to the Government of Examiner of Questioned Documents, for comparison with the purported signatures of the applicants.
10. Fingerprint Bureau, Phillaur, vide report Ex. P-1, opined that thumb impressions, marked Q-2 and Q-3, on affidavit Ex. P.W.-58/A-21, which purported to be of one Hari Chand, matched with the specimen thumb impression Marked-I on Ex. P.W.-10/L, which is the specimen thumb impression of accused Hari Singh.
11. On completion of investigation, report, u/s 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, alongwith relevant papers, was filed in the Court of learned Special Judge, who, after complying with the requirement of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and hearing learned Public Prosecutor and learned defence counsel and going through the record, found that a prima face case, under the aforesaid penal provisions of law, was made out against all the accused. They were charged accordingly. On their pleading not guilty, they were put on trial.
12. Prosecution examined a large number of witnesses, including 17 private land owners, in whose names applications had been submitted and also proved various documents. Accused, in their statements, u/s 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, denied that they had committed any crime. Learned trial Court concluded that the case of the prosecution did not stand established, beyond reasonable doubt.
13. We have heard learned Deputy Advocate General as also learned Counsel representing the accused and gone through the record.
14. First, we take up the accusation that illicit felling of trees, on Government land, adjoining to the private land, described in the applications, had been done, by accused Hari Singh and his partners, Nikka Ram and Rai Singh. To prove this allegation, prosecution relies upon the testimony of P.W.-33 Madan Singh, Naib Tehsildar and P.W.-4 Saran Dass, Block Officer of Forest Department.
15. P.W.-33 Madan Singh, Naib Tehsildar, after carrying out demarcation, gave reports Ex. P.W.-33/A, Ex. P.W.-33/D, Ex. P.W.-33/F and Ex. P.W.-33/J. On the basis of the demarcation given by him, stumps of felled trees were counted by P.W.-4 Saran Dass, Block Officer.
16. This was a case of delineating the boundary of private land and Government land, because demarcation was sought by the Investigating Agency to find out if any felling of trees had taken place on Government land, adjoining the land described in the applications.
17. As per Para 10.10 of H.P. Land Records Manual, when demarcation of some land, adjoining Government land, is to be carried out, with a view to determining the boundary of private land and Government land, demarcation is required to be carried out by Assistant Collector 1st Grade.
18. In this case, demarcation was carried out by Naib Tehsildar, who does not enjoy the powers of Assistant Collector 1st Grade, but of Assistant Collector 2nd Grade. Moreover, from an overall reading of the testimony of P.W.-33 Madan Singh, Naib Tehsildar, it appears that he did not fix permanent points, before proceeding with the demarcation, which is a sine qua non, for carrying out correct demarcation. The witness stated that he had fixed a permanent point, which was a house in Khasra No. 7, in village Kelvi Lohana, but when confronted with Musabi Ex. P.W.-33/B-5, he admitted that there was no permanent point, like the one he assumed, in the Musabi. Owners of private lands had also not been associated, though the requirement is that the persons, whose land is being demarcated, must be associated. Accused Hari Singh, Nikka Ram and Rai Singh had also not been associated in the demarcation.
19. Abovestated position apart, P.W.-4 Saran Dass, Block Officer, stated that the stumps, which were counted on the adjoining Government land, did not bear hammer or Khudan mark of accused Hira Singh Rai Singh. If that is so, the stumps cannot be said to be of the trees, which were marked by accused forest officials, on the basis of demarcation given by accused revenue officials. The witness did not deny that the stumps could have been of lawfully felled trees, granted under TD Scheme or of the trees sold by the Forest Department, for felling.
20. Next allegation pertains to export of more timber than permitted to be exported, vide Permit No. 12/82-83, Ex. P.W.-2/E. Against 3963 scants, permitted to be exported, 4003 scants are alleged to have been exported, against various Railway Receipts. The difference is of only 40 scants.
21. P.W.-8 K.C. Nandwani and P.W.-20 M.A. Sidiqui, Railway Inspectors, who inquired into the matter, admitted that at times a few scants are cut into pieces, for proper loading and adjustment of the timber in bogies. Taking into consideration the fact that number of scants exported in excess was negligible, it can legitimately be said that some scants were cut into pieces to facilitate proper loading and adjustment of timber in the bogies.
22. Coming to the last accusation, that is of forgery, there is positive and definite evidence, showing that accused Hira Singh thumb impressed affidavit Ex. P.W.-58/A-21, submitted with application Ex. P.W.-58/A-22, in place of accused Hari Chand, one of the seven applicants, by whom application Ex. P.W.-58/A-22 purports to have been submitted. Affidavit Ex. P.W.-58/A-21 is though sworn by only two of the seven applicants, namely Jeet Singh and Het Ram, it bears the purported thumb impressions/signatures of all the seven applicants and one of those applicants is Hari Chand. Thumb impressions Marked Q-2 and Q-3, on the affidavit, which is purported to be one of the applicants, namely Hari Chand, have been opined to match with the specimen thumb impression Marked-I on Ex. P.W.-10/L, by the Fingerprint Bureau, Phillaur, vide report Ex. P-1.
23. Specimen thumb impressions on Ex. P.W.-10/L are proved to be of accused Hira Singh, by P.W.-10 D.S. Negi, Tehsildar, Chopal, who testified that specimen thumb impressions of accused Hira Singh were taken in his presence by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Harbhajan Singh, and that accused Hira Singh had been identified by P.W.-60 Surat Singh.
24. In his testimony P.W.-60 Surat Singh, the identifier, stated, very categorically, that thumb impressions of accused Hira Singh were taken before Tehsildar D.S. Negi, in his presence and he had identified the said accused before the Tehsildar, at the time when his specimen thumb impressions were taken.
25. The evidence, thus, fully establishes the charge of forgery against accused Hira Singh. The forged document was used as genuine, for seeking permission to fell the trees and, therefore, charge of using forged document, as genuine, knowing or having reason to believe that the same is forged, also stands proved against said accused Hira Singh. Forgery was committed for the purpose of cheating, that is to say to deceive the Divisional Forest Officer and thereby to obtain felling orders from him. So, said accused Hira Singh is held guilty of forgery, for the purpose of cheating, punishable u/s 468 of the Indian Penal Code, besides the offence of using forged document as genuine, u/s 471 of the Indian Penal Code. He is convicted of both the offences.
26. State''s appeal, to the extent it assails the acquittal of accused Hira Singh, in respect of offences, under Sections 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, is accepted. Rest of it is dismissed.
Accused Hira Singh be produced in the Court on 9th May, 2011, for being heard on the quantum of sentence.
