STATE OF H P Vs. RASHEED AHMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision-petition under Ss. 397, 401 read with S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the petitioner/State (hereafter referred to as 'the petitioner') against the order dated 24-5-2000 passed by the learned Special Judge, Sirmaur Sessions Division at Nahan whereby he had discharged the respondents/accused (hereafter referred to as 'the accused persons') of the offences under S.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and S. 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Prevention of Specific Corrupt Practices Act, 1983.

(2.) Brief facts leading to the presentation of the present petition are that on the report made by Pradeep Kumar, Range Officer, Nahan, Police Station Enforcement (South Zone, Shimla) on 12-5-1995 registered case F.I.R. No. 116/95 under Ss. 379, 420, 120-B, I.P.C., 26, 41, 42 of the Indian Forest Act, S. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and S. 14 of Himachal Pradesh Prevention of Specific Corrupt Practices Act, 1983 on the allegations that on 8-5-1995 said Pradeep Kumar received a secret telephonic information that illicit felling was being done in the jungle bordering Haryana. On receipt of information, he alongwith other forest officials proceeded to reserve forest Sangholi and found that 139 trees of Khair and 3 of Kokat had been illicitly felled. During the course of investigation when the said forest was again inspected it was found that 285 trees of Khair of the value of Rs. 1,05,814.00 were illicitly felled from different compartments of the forest. Accused-Rasheed Ahmad and Roshan Deen were arrested during the investigation and some wood valued at Rs. 52,014.50 was recovered from them. The investigation further revealed that accused-Ajmer Singh was the Forest Guard and accused Het Ram was the Deputy Ranger of the concerned reserve forest at the relevant time. They inspected the area of the forest from where the trees were felled several times during the relevant period but failed to report about the felling of the trees and theft thereof and thus failed in the discharge of their duties. On completion of the investigation, the concerned Police Officer presented challan against the accused persons under different penal provisions already set out hereinabove in the Court of the learned Special Judge. After hearing the parties, the learned Special Judge concluded that there were no grounds to presume that any of the accused committed offences punishable under S. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and S. 14 of the Himachal Pradesh Prevention of Specific Corrupt Practices Act and accordingly discharged the accused of the said offences with liberty to the State to prosecute the accused under any other provisions of law in an ordinary Criminal Court. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.

(3.) I have heard the learned Law Officer for the petitioner-State and the learned counsel for respondent No. 4 as none appeared for other respondents despite notice and have also perused the records.