Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Rattan Chand vs The State Of Himachal Pradesh on 7 August, 2018
Bench: Ranjan Gogoi, Navin Sinha, Vineet Saran
SLP (Crl.) No.2223/2018
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 969 OF 2018
(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.2223 OF 2018)
RATTAN CHAND ...Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH ...Respondent
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
3. The accused-appellant who was acquitted by the learned trial Court on the charge under Section 14 of the H.P. Prevention of Specific Corrupt Practices Act, 1983 (in short “H.P. Act”) Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by POOJA ARORA and Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code has been Date: 2018.08.10 18:01:16 IST Reason: found guilty and convicted by the High Court under the aforesaid two provisions of law. He has been SLP (Crl.) No.2223/2018 2 sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for commission of the offence under Section 14 of the H.P. Act and for five years for commission under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused-appellant, we are told, is in custody for approximately two years.
4. The charge against the accused-appellant who is a Forest-Guard is that on account of his negligence Deodar trees were felled and the timber was illegally extracted. Exhibit PW-2/C and PW2/G authored by PW-2 and PW-7 certified the age of the fallen timber to be two-three months within 05.05.2003 and 06.05.2003, the dates of the aforesaid two reports i.e exhibit PW-2/C and PW2/G.
5. The learned trial court took the view that the opinions of Pws.2 and 7, who were employees of the forest department, with regard to the age of the fallen timber, was not good enough to bring home the charge. Rather according to the learned SLP (Crl.) No.2223/2018 3 trial Court, the opinion of an expert should have been obtained. That apart, the learned trial Court also took note of the fact that from the materials on record it was evident that the accused was on leave from 8-03-2003 to 30-03-2003 and thereafter under suspension from 25-03-2003 to 23-05-2003. The learned trial court, additionally held that taking into account the aforesaid period of absence from duty, it cannot be held that the prosecution has established the charge.
6. In appeal by the State against the acquittal, the High Court held that Pws-2 and 7 because of their long experience as Forest Officers were competent to depose with regard to the age of the fallen timber and no infirmity can be found on the aforesaid score. It is on the aforesaid basis that the High Court thought it proper to reverse the order of acquittal and convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant, as aforesaid. SLP (Crl.) No.2223/2018 4
7. The period of absence from duty of the appellant, on which there is no dispute, raises some doubt with regard to the necessary connection that the prosecution was bound to establish between the dates of Exhibit PW-2/C and PW-2/G and the participation of the accused- appellant in the offence alleged. This is even if we are to hypothetically assume the competence of PW-2 and PW-7 to submit the two reports marked as Exhibit PW-2/C and PW-2/G.
8. The above apart, reading Section 14 of the Act, we find that to bring home the offence contemplated therein it is the prosecution who has to establish that the accused-appellant knowingly permitted, connived or abated or failed to report the illegal felling of trees or extraction of logs etc. No evidence on the said score is forthcoming. The offence under Section 14 of the Act, therefore, cannot be said to be made out. SLP (Crl.) No.2223/2018 5
9. Coming to the offence under Section 409, we find that in the present case, it cannot be said that merely by virtue of the office that the accused-appellant was holding i.e Forest Guard there was an entrustment of the property or that the accused had dominion of the property and that the accused-appellant has dishonestly misappropriated or converted the same for his own use.
10. At best, the present could be a case of dereliction of duty on the part of the accused- appellant for which we understand he has been departmentally proceeded against. The charge under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code will, therefore, also have to fail.
11. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that the High Court was not justified in reversing the acquittal of the accused-appellant as ordered by the learned trial court. The order of the High Court, therefore, is set aside and the Order of SLP (Crl.) No.2223/2018 6 the acquittal passed by the learned trial Court is restored. The accused-appellant be released from custody forthwith unless such custody is required in connection with any other case.
12. The appeal is accordingly allowed in the above terms.
....................,J.
(RANJAN GOGOI) ....................,J.
(NAVIN SINHA) ....................,J.
(VINEET SARAN)
NEW DELHI
AUGUST 7, 2018
SLP (Crl.) No.2223/2018
7
ITEM NO.6 COURT NO.2 SECTION II-C
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.2223/2018
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 02-09-2016 in CLRA No. 224/2010 and 29-08-2016 in CRLA No. 224/2010 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla) RATTAN CHAND Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Respondent(s) (WITH PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF Date : 07-08-2018 This petition was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEET SARAN For Petitioner(s) Mr. A.T.M. Rangaramanujam, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Naresh Kumar, AOR Mr. Pratyush Rai, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Kapil Hooda, Adv.
Ma. Kalpana Devi, Adv.
Mr. Abhinav Mukerji, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.
Heard learned counsels for the parties.
The appeal is allowed in terms of the Signed order.
(POOJA ARORA) (ASHA SONI)
COURT MASTER BRANCH OFFICER
(Signed Order is placed on the file)