GURMAIL BATWA Vs. ONKAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners No. 1 to 3 were the Chief Engineer, Executive Engineer and Sub-Divisional Engineer, respectively, in the Public Works Department (Buildings and Roads Branch) in the State. The State of Punjab issued a sanction for the construction of a high level bridge over the Saggran Choe crossing on the Dasuya-Hajipur Road in the year 1987, to be constructed by the department. The department submitted all the details and plans to the Forest Department and after a persual thereof, the Divisional Forest Officer, vide his letter dated February 25, 1991, conveyed the information that the Forest Department had no objection to the construction of the bridge. On February 4, 1991, petitioner No. 2 had also written a letter to the District Forest Officer, Hoshiarpur requesting him to instruct the concerned staff to remove the trees so that the construction work would go on unimpeded. The Forest Department vide the letter dated September 18, 1992 asked respondent No. 3 to mark the trees which were required to be removed. The marking was completed and information thereof was also conveyed to the Forest Department thereafter. As the trees had not been removed despite numerous requests and as the Chief Minister was to open the bridge for public use, petitioner No. 2 addressed a letter dated December 8, 1992 to the Forest Officer requesting him for the urgent removal of the trees. It is the petitioners case that the Forest Officer had got the trees cut thereafter and removed the timber from the site. The Forest Department, however, filed a complaint (Annexure P-1 to the petition) dated 11.2.1993 against the petitioners for their prosecution under Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, alleging that the trees had been got cut by the petitioners and as such they were liable to be tried for the aforesaid offences. The Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Dasuya vide his order dated May 28, 1993 summoned the petitioners to stand trial.

(2.) THE present petition for quashing of proceedings has been filed by the three accused alleging that the Magistrate could not have taken cognizance of the allegations and summoned the accused as the sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had not been obtained by the respondents prior to the filing of the complaint.

(3.) I have gone through the record with the help of the learned counsel for the accused.