SHAHAB UDDIN QURESHI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under section 482 CrPC has been preferred by Shahabuddin Qureshi applicant praying for quashing the proceedings pending against him under Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 in the Court of Sessions Judge, Dehradun as Special Case No. 2 of 1983. The aforesaid proceedings arise out of Grime No. 156 of 1972 registered in the year 1970 at Dehradun.

(2.) THE applicant was serving as Conservator of Forest, Tehri Garhwal Circle, Dehradun and he was superannuated from the service in the year 1972. Subsequeat to his retirement, a charge-sheet was filed by CID against him on 11-5-1983 in the Court of Sessions Judge, Dehradun and as a consequence of the filing of the said charge-sheet, the applicant was summoned by the Court. THE applicant put in his appearance before the Court of Sessions Judge Dehradun on 2-6-1983. THEreafter, the applicant, preferred the aforesaid petition under section 482 CrPC in the High Court praying that the aforesaid proceedings pending against him be quashed. This Court admitted the application and stayed further proceedings on 19-4-1985 in Special Case No. 2 of 1983 pending against him in the Court of Sessions Judge, Dehradun and issued notice to the State whereupon Sri Krishna Kumar Tyagi, Inspector of Police (Vigilance) Establishment, Meerut Sector, Meerutt filed rejoinder to the counter affidavit.

(3.) AT the very out-set, it has been submitted on behalf of the applicant that considering the prosecution case in its entirety, there is not a vestige of allegation indicative of illegal gratification having been accepted by the applicant. The only allegation is that of negligence on the part of the applicant causing loss of revenue to the Government. Here it is worth mentioning that the timber which was auctioned by Chain Singh Saundal, District Forest Officer, was not removed from the Forest and it continued to be in possession of the Forest Department. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that it had yielded no monetary advantage to the applicant or to any Contractor in not approving the auction of the timber of Iot no. 6. The learned counsel has invited my attention to section 5 of Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 (herein after referred to as the Act) to show that the allegations contained in the charge-sheet do not attract the provisions of the said Act. The relevant section is reproduced below :