Hp No. 23 of 4422 · High Court of Himachal Pradesh · 2010
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
is involved, present application is allowed and
Provisions considered
- Indian Forest Act ss. 41, 42
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 s. 379
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. Writing, regarding sale purchase of Van, which was executed between the applicant and Kanchan, shows that initially registration number was recorded as HP-20- 4422, but lateron digit (cid:145)20(cid:146) was changed to (cid:145)23(cid:146). Learned counsel for the applicant has shown a carbon copy of the…
Judgment
The Hon(cid:146)ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Applicant : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General and Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. Surjit Singh, J (Oral) Heard and gone through the record.
A case, under Sections 41 & 42 of Indian Forest Act and Section 379 of Indian Penal Code, has been registered against the applicant, for allegedly committing theft of Khair trees, in the area of Amb Tehsil of Una District, and making an attempt to smuggle the wood extracted from the felled trees. According to the police, on 5th November, 2009, when a team of police officials, headed by ASI Bir Singh, was present at Una, near cremation ground, Maruti Van bearing registration No.HP-23-4422 appeared from Amb side. It was signaled to stop, but it did not. Rather, the driver accelerated the speed and went towards Dhamandri Khud, where he abandoned the Van and disappeared in the reed plants. On search, nine logs of Khair wood were found Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? (cid:133)2(cid:133) in the Van. A case was registered, under the aforesaid provisions of Indian Forest Act and Indian Penal Code.
During the course of investigation, it came to light that the present applicant had purchased the Van, in question, on 4th November, 2009 from one Kanchan wife of Sanjeev Kumar, for a consideration of ‘25,000/-. On 9th November, 2009, a report was lodged by the wife of the applicant with the police that Maruti Van bearing registration No.HP-20-4422, which had been purchased by her husband from aforesaid Kanchan and was parked outside her house, had been missing. On inquiry, the police found that registration No.HP-20-4422 was of a scooter owned by one D.K. Sharma and not of any Maruti Van.
Operative part
Writing, regarding sale purchase of Van, which was executed between the applicant and Kanchan, shows that initially registration number was recorded as HP-20- 4422, but lateron digit (cid:145)20(cid:146) was changed to (cid:145)23(cid:146). Learned counsel for the applicant has shown a carbon copy of the writing, in which registration number is recorded as HP-20- 4422 and there is no cutting in this carbon copy. On the police record, I find only Photostat copies. Photocopies of police record are similar to the carbon copy available with the learned counsel for the applicant, which indicates that the change in registration number has been effected after the writing had been prepared and its carbon copy handed over to the applicant. This carbon copy has been handed over to the Investigating Officer of the case, with a direction (cid:133)3(cid:133) to take the same on the record of investigation, by means of a Memo, a copy of which is directed be supplied to the learned counsel for the applicant. In the Memo, the Investigating Officer shall specifically write that the number of the Van is not changed by overwriting in this carbon copy. In view of the abovestated position, as also the fact that the case was registered about a year back and no recovery etc. is involved, present application is allowed and the order of interim bail dated 25th October, 2010 is made absolute. Application stands disposed of. Copy dasti. November 9, 2010(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: is involved, present application is allowed and
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Forest Act — ss. 41, 42; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 379.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Himachal Pradesh High Court, on 09 Nov 2010. The bench was SURJIT SINGH.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.