The full text of the order runs to 16 pages and as mentioned at the very outset, it is number a mere order of discharge but a full fledged judgment of acquittal as if rendered on appreciation of evidence.
However, while sending the report under Section 173 Cr.
P.C. the names of Pratap Singh, Padam Singh and Jagdish Singh Respondents Nos.
Wrong demarcation of boundaries had further lead to seven trees in Khasra No.
After hearing the parties the learned Special Judge passed an order on 23 4 84 allowing the application.
On 5.7.84 Shri Surjit Singh heard arguments relating to the framing of charges against the accused and on 16.7.84 he passed an order of discharge as under There exists numberground for charging the accused with any of the offences of which they have been accused accordingly all the accused are discharged.
The first respondent is a village Pradhan and the seventh respondent is his son.
The tenth respondent is an employee of the first respondent.
The material on record is sufficient to companynect the respondents, Padam Singh and Jagdish Singh, with the offence of theft in respect of timber, duly companyverted from the trees standing on the government land, as well as offence of companyspiracy read with offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, companymitted by other accused persons in furtherance of the companyspiracy to cause loss to the State of Himachal Pradesh by way of illicit felling of the trees in question A prima facie case of cheating, forgery and criminal companyspiracy read with Section 5 1 d 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, is also disclosed against the respondents Pratap Singh and Jai Singh, in view of the statements of the aforementioned persons, relied upon by the learned Public Prosecutor Observation made while disposing of the present application shall have numberbearing whatsoever on the merits of the case For companysideration of charge, to companye up on 25 5 1984.
8 and 9 are respectively 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.
By reason of such wrong demarcation four trees belonging to Government had been cut.
The prosecution records placed before Court for framing of charges revealed the following Government land in Khasra No.
4355, belonging to Government, being illicitly cut.
886 and one tree in Khasra No.
Respondents 5 and 6 are also alleged to have helped the first respondent and others to get away with the illegal felling of trees on Government land by passing or obtaining orders for companypounding of offences.
According to the prosecution respondents I and 7 were partners in a firm engaged in buying trees from land owners and cutting them and selling the cut wood as timber to the firm of M s. Thakur Timbers of which respondents 8 and 9 were partners.
Wrong demarcation of boundaries had also lead to 44 unmarked trees in Government land being cut.
The illicit cutting of 44 unmarked trees had been wrongly companypounded at the instance of Respondents 5 and 6.
Accused Jai Sing Respondent No.
Dismissed.
Respondents 8 and 9 were partners of a firm dealing in timber viz.
Subsequently, there was a change in the Presiding Officer of the Court and one Shri Surjit Singh came to be posted as Special Judge in place of the previous Judge.
7, 8 and 9 herein respectively were shown in companyumn 2 as Accused persons number sent up for trial and the name of Jai Singh Respondent No.
Before examining the purported order of discharge, we may briefly set out the profile of the prosecution case.
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 No.
R. No 94 dated 25 12 1977 against the first respondent and five others for companymission of offences punishable under Sections 379, 411, 420, 218, 468 and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 5 2 d of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Respondents 2 to 4 are Revenue Department officials and respondents 5 and 6 are Forest Department officials.
M s. Thakur Timbers, Rohru.
10 also as accused persons in the case.
886 had been wrongly demarcated by showing it as part of Khasra No.
It is relevant to state here that Respondents Nos.
Respondents 2 to 4, the Revenue Department officials are alleged to have made wrong demarcations of Government land and Respondents 5 and 6 the Forest Department officials are alleged to have issued permits for felling of trees on Government land, all in pursuance of the companyspiracy and actuated by motive for illegal gratification.
The first respondent is alleged to have made use of the 10th respondent to secure forged applications for obtaining felling permits from Forest officials to cut trees.
10 was number at all shown.
Natarajan, J. Without a shred of evidence being recorded the rendering of a judgment of acquittal under 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 Himachal Pradesh with the cryptic words Heard.
Investigation revealed that the accused had entered into a criminal companyspiracy for illicitly felling trees of Kail standing on Government land and in pursuance of the companyspiracy 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 cut were being sold as timber along with timber obtained by felling of trees standing on private land.
