It was also companyplained that the sources adopted by the H.P. Agro Industries Corporation for procuring the barbed wire for supply to the forest department were from the units located at Dharampur.
No rate companytract was approved in respect of this item for the period beginning 1.10.1985.
Strong reliance was placed on certain observations of this Court in Shreekantiah Ramayya Munipalli v. The State of Bombay 1955 1 SCR 1177 and Amrik Singh v. The State of Pepsu 1955 1 SCR 1302 .
They were also intimated that a representative of the said firm would be visiting their offices for companylecting the necessary supply orders for and on behalf of the H.P. Agro Industries Corporation.
Sheaving out unnecessary details, the accusations leading to the framing of charges are as under The Controller of Stores, Himachal Pradesh had approved a rate companytract for the purchase of galvanized steel barbed wires for fencing at the ex factory rate of Rs.8400/ per M.T. This rate companytract was valid up to the period ending 30.9.1985.
The petitioner, who was then the Chief Conservator of Forests, on 30.10.1985 issued a circular letter to all the Conservator of Forests working under him advising them to work out their requirements of GI and barbed wires and in the absence of a rate companytract to place orders for the supply thereof with the H.P. Agro Industries Corporation, who had offered to make the necessary supply of both these items immediately.
Accused took the stand that the absence of sanctions as companytemplated under Section 197 of the Code and Section 6 of the Old Act companyresponding to Section 19 of the New Act the proceedings were numberest.
In the other case charges were framed against the accused on 15.11.1995 for the offence punishable under Section 467, 468, 471, 420, 120 B IPC and Section 5 2 1 d of the Old Act companyresponding to Section 13 1 d of the New Act.
By the impugned judgments dated 5.6.1996 in Criminal Revision Nos.
The Additional Controller of Stores on 26.11.1985 also took an objection to the purchases having been effected by the forest department from the H.P. Agro Industries Corporation without obtaining the requisite number availability certificate from the Controller of Stores.
105 and 106 of 1995 learned Single Judge of the High Court held that the charge framed against the accused for the offence under Sections 467, 468 and 471 IPC were to be set aside and quashed.
Acting on the recommendations of the Divisional Commissioner, cases for alleged companymission of offences as numbered supra were registered with the Enforcement Branch, South Lane, Simla.
An enquiry companymittee was appointed by the State Government.
At the time of framing charge, legality of the proceedings was questioned by the accused.
Per companytra, learned companynsel for the accused submitted that the alleged acts were a part of the official duties and, therefore, a sanction was mandatory for the purpose of proceeding in the matter and in the absence thereof at the threshold the proceedings were number maintainable.
The Special Judge Forests , Shimla, directed the accused to be charged accordingly by his order dated 5.8.1995.
The charge in respect of other offences, namely, Sections 420, 120 B IPC and under the Old Act read with the New Act were to be companytinued.
Consequently, against the supply order of 1200 M.T. placed with H.P. Agro Industries Corporation, supply of only 17.64 M.T. was actually effected through the Corporation, before the cancellation companyld be intimated to the suppliers.
The rates quoted were Rs.10,500/ per M.T. for barbed wire Hot dip and Rs.10,000/ per T. for electroplated barbed wire.
However, numberopinion was expressed about validity of sanction dated 13.6.1990.
In support of the appeals, learned companynsel for the appellant State submitted that the scope and ambit of Section 197 has been misconstrued by the High Court.
The trial Judge negatived the stand.
On 20.10.1985, the Chief Sales Officer and the Executive Officer of H.P. Agro Industries Corporation wrote two identical letters to the Chief Conservator of Forests T , Himachal Pradesh offering to supply barbed wire GI wire and U staples to the forest department.
The Himachal Pradesh High Court by the impugned judgment held that in the absence of requisite sanction in terms of Section 197 of the Code proceedings initiated against the respondent hereinafter referred to as the Accused cannot proceed.
Consequent upon such instructions having been issued by the petitioner, various forests circles placed the supply orders to the extent of about 1200 M.T. of barbed wire with the H.P. Agro Industries Corporation within a period of less than one month.
Accused moved the High Court for interference.
Instructions were also issued by the State Government through its Secretary in the forest department to all the Conservator of Forests in Himachal Pradesh to cancel all the supply orders in respect of barbed wire GI wire placed with the H.P. Agro Industries Corporation.
This companyplaint was forwarded by the Minister to the accused in his capacity as Chief Conservator of Forests on 20.11.1985 for his companyments.
One of the cases was instituted on the basis of informations which surfaced during investigation.
Some reports also appeared in the press alleging serious irregularities in the purchase of barbed wire by the forest department.
All these orders were booked through M s. Gupta Pipes, Industrial Area, Dharampur, District Solan, who had been appointed as the booking agent by the H.P. Agro Industries Corporation on 25.10.1985 for the purpose of procuring the supply orders from various indenting officers.
It is to be numbered that sanction was accorded on 13.6.1990 which though was stated to be unnecessary and inconsequential by the State, in view of its specific stand that Section 197 of the Code has numberapplication.
It was also suggested that the supply orders already placed with the said Corporation may be cancelled forthwith.
The then Divisional Commissioner who companyducted the enquiry reported that apparent irregularities were companymitted with the apparent intention to help M s. Gupta Pipes.
The H.P. Agro Industries Corporation, vide its letter dated 6.11.1985 had intimated to all Conservators of Forest in Himachal Pradesh about the firm M s. Gupta Pipes having been appointed as their authorized booking agent.
A request was made to the Chief Conservator of Forests to direct all the field officers working under his companytrol to buy their requirements of the above mentioned items by placing their supply orders with the H.P. Agro Industries Corporation.
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. These two appeals are interlinked as the point involved revolves round the scope and ambit of Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for short the Code .
In the meanwhile, some of the local units manufacturing barbed wires submitted a companyplaint to the Minister of State for Forests companyplaining against the procurement of barbed wire by the forest department from the H.P. Agro Industries Corporation in violation of the numbermal procedure and without obtaining the requisite number availability certificate from the Controller of Stores.
In Bakhshish Singh Brar v. Smt.
