NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION  

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S)442 OF 2019 (Arising  out  of  Special  Leave  Petition(Crl.)   No(s). 7713/2017)

PAWAN KUMAR & ORS.                       APPELLANT(s)

                               VERSUS

THE STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH           RESPONDENT(s)

J U D G M E N T

1. None appears for the appellants. We have gone through the records with the assistance of the learned counsel for the respondent.

2. Leave granted.

3. The  appellants  were  apprehended  with  a  vehicle carrying 22 logs of Khair wood.  They did not produce any authorization or permit with regard to the same.  Their prosecution under Section 379, IPC read with Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act culminated in acquittal

1

under Section 379, IPC by the Magistrate.  The conviction under the Forest Act was for six months.

4. The  conviction  under  the  Forest  Act  was  assailed before the Sessions Judge in appeal.  The appellants were acquitted as neither the Khair wood logs nor the lorry in which it was being transported were produced as exhibits. The independent witness of seizure also did not support.

5. In the appeal against acquittal by the State, the High Court held that the independent witness did not deny his signatures on the seizure memo.  In view of a sample of the log having been produced, non-production of the vehicle  was  not  relevant,  reversing  the  acquittal  and sentencing the appellants under Sections 41 and 42 of the Forest Act for three months with fine of Rs.500/- with a default stipulation of one month.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the respondent in opposition to the appeal and considered the nature of evidence available.  Non-production of the seized wood and  the  vehicle,  the  primary  evidence  of  the  offence,

2

renders the prosecution case fragile and unsustainable. Mere production of the seizure memo does not tantamount to  the  production  of  the  seized  woods  and  the  lorry. Unless the seized wood was produced, mere production of a sample,  and  there  is  no  material  in  support  that  the sample was out of the same 22 logs, we are unable to sustain the conviction of the appellants.

7. Since we do not have the benefit of the presence of the appellants, the status of the sentence is not known. Even  while  we  acquit  the  appellants,  if  they  have undergone the sentence, they shall stand acquitted of the charge.

8. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.  

......................J. [NAVIN SINHA]

......................J.         [M.R. SHAH]

NEW DELHI; MARCH 06, 2019.  

3