- (1.)Heard Mr. Anil Nag, learned Counsel for the Appellant, and Mr. Suryanarayanan Singh, learned Additional Advocate General for the Respondent - State of Himachal Pradesh. The Appellant, Sant Ram, stands convicted Under Sections 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and Rules 11 and 18 of the H.P. Forest Produce Transit (Land Routes) Rules, 1978.
(2.)Regard being had to the two contentions raised by Mr. Anil Nag, we are not required to state the facts in detail. Suffice it to say, the Appellant was working as a Forest Guard at the Check Post Chambi in the year 1981-82. The Divisional Forest Officer had granted permit Exb. No. 41/81-82 for 118 pieces of cut logs. The first lot on the basis of a challan passed through the Check Post and the concerned truck carried 71 cut logs. Though there is some dispute in that regard and certain aspects have been highlighted by the learned trial Judge as well as by the High Court, the said facts need not be adverted to. So far as the balance lot is concerned, as alleged by the prosecution, the vehicle carried 91 logs vide challan No. Ex. P.W.-20-B. A carbon copy of the challan was produced by the prosecution. Learned trial Judge accepted the same as admissible in evidence and the High Court agreed with the same. A finding has been recorded that the entry that had been made in the carbon copy was not recorded in the Khata register and, in any way, 91 logs as alleged to be have passed through the check gate was beyond the permit.
(3.)Mr. Anil Nag, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant, has submitted that a carbon copy could not have been held as admissible in evidence without any foundation being made as regards the non-production of the primary evidence. The second contention that has been canvassed by Mr. Nag is that there has been manifest manipulation in the carbon copy. We shall deal with the first contention first.