JUDGMENT
S.N. Phukan, J.
1. This is an appeal by the State against the judgment of the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rohru, District Shimla dated 13-10-1986 in case No. 167/3 of 1984. By the impugned judgment, the learned trial Court found the accused Shiv Nath not guilty under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and acquitted him.
2. Briefly stated, the facts are as follows. On 26-4-1983, it was alleged that the accused illegally felled a tree of Kail of Class II-B from U.F-Laka without permission of the Forest Department causing a total loss of Rs. 2077.32 paise to the Forest Department. The Forest Guard Shri Maldar Singh had seized one Geli of 22 feet on the spot. According to the prosecution, the accused made an extra-judicial confession before the above Forest Guard in the presence of witness Mangat Ram and Deputy Ranger Shri Bhau Ram.
3. The accused pleaded not guilty and his statement under Section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was duly recorded.
4. Heard Mr. R. M. Bisht, learned Assistant Advocate-General and Mr. Praneet Gupta learned counsel for the accused-respondent.
5. In an appeal against the acquittal, the Court normally should not interfere with the judgment of the trial Court unless it is perverse or based on no evidence. In the case in hand, it appears that only evidence, which is available with the prosecution is that of the extra-judicial confession alleged to have been made by the accused-respondent before the Forest Guard in the presence of witness Mangat Ram, but Mangat Ram in his evidence completely denied that such an extra-judicial confession was made by the accused-respondent. On that ground alone, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
6. I may add here that on perusal of the judgment as well as record, it cannot be said that the judgmenti is either perverse or based on no evidence.
7. The learned trial Court also took note of the fact that Section 31 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 being mandatory in law as laid down by this Court in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Ami Chand, 1992 (2) Sim LC 169, the prosecution did not prove before the trial Court that a local vernacular notification was issued under Section 30 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 by the Collector or duly affixed in a conspicuous place of the forest comprised in the notification. Mr. Bisht, learned Assistant. Advocate-General has rightly pointed out that such a notification was issued long back and, therefore, publication of such a notification in local vernacular can only be proved from records and not by oral evidence.
8. On perusal of the record, I find that prosecution was not given a chance to prove this fact. For future guidance and keeping in view the public interest involved, the prosecution may take such steps, as may be necessary for trial of such offences by producing before the trial Court the relevant record to show that such vernacular notifications were duly published.
9. Subject to the above findings and observations, I do not find any merit in the present appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.