STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. KRISHAN LAL PARDHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Without a shred of evidence being recorded the rendering of a judgment of acquittal under the garb of an order of discharge of the accused by the Special Judge, Shimla and a summary dismissal of the criminal revision filed against that order by the High Court of Himahcal Pradesh with the cryptic words "Heard. Dismissed." has impelled the State to file this appeal by special leave under Art. 136 of the Constitution.

(2.) During the investigation of another case relating to F.I.R. No. 71 of L977 the investigating authorities came to seize 2607 scants. With reference to these scants a case as registered in F.I.R. No. 94 dated 25-12-1977 against the first respondent and five others for commission of offences punishable under Ss. 379, 411, 420. 218, 468 and 120-B, Penal Code, read with S. 5(2)(d), Prevention .of Corruption Act. Investigation revealed that the accused had entered into a criminal conspiracy for illicitly felling trees of Kail standing on Government land and in pursuance of the conspiracy permits for cutting of trees standing on Government land had been obtained by making use of forged applications and that certain Revenue Department officials and Forest Department officials had enabled the cutting of trees from Government land by wrong demarcation of boundaries and. issuance of felling permits and that the trees so out were being sold as timber along with timber obtained by felling of trees standing on private land. However, while sending the report under S. 173, Cr. P.C. the names of Pratap Singh, Padam Singh and Jagdish Singh (respondents 7, 8 and 9 herein respectively) were shown in column 2 as "accused persons not sent up for trial" and the name of Jai Singh (respondent 10) was not at all shown. It is relevant to state here that respondents 8 and 9 are respectively the son-in-law and son of Shri Ramlal, who was Chief Minister of Himachal Pradesh from March to August 1976 and again from 1980 till the end of March 1983.

(3.) After Shri Ramlal went out of office the Public Prosecutor filed an application before the Special Judge, Shimla for impleading respondents 7 to 9 as well as respondent 10 also as accused persons in the case. After hearing the parties the learned Special Judge passed an order on 23-4-84 allowing the application. The relevant portions in the order of the Special Judge which require notice are extracted below and read as under:-