JUDGMENT : R.N. Misra, J. - This is an application u/s 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure asking for quashing the two charges framed against the Petitioner u/s 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) and Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (Act 2 of 1947) by the learned Special Judge, Bbubaneswar. 2. The Petitioner was the Divisional Forest Officer at Jeypore in the district of Koraput between 27-4-1964 and 8-7-1967. Large scale illicit felling of timber from Government forests took place during that period and the matter received some publicity. Shri S.K. Mohanty, Chief Conservator of Forests, held an enquiry and made a report to Government on 18-12-1967. Therein he indicated that the said report was an interim one and a fuller report would follow. On 9-2-1968, Shri D.N. Choudhury, Chief Conservator of Forests, sent another report to Government. Soon thereafter 80 vigilance case was registered vide Cuttack Vigilance P.S. Case No. 4 of 1968. It was alleged then that there was an unholy combination of the Government officials in the Forests and Revenue Departments with some forest contractors as a result whereof Government forests were being depleted of valuable timber on the pretext of tenants timber having been out and removed after following the usual procedure. After due investigation some officers of the Forest Department and some others of the Revenue Department and a host of forest contractors and their people were charge-sheeted. The Petitioner who was the Divisional Forest Officer during that period was also Rent up for trial and the learned Special Judge has on the basis of papers placed before him of investigation, framed two charges against him and another (the Range Officer of the Malkangiri Forest Range). They are as follows: Firstly : That you being public servants, namely, District Forest Officer, Jyepore Division and the Range Officer of Malkangiri Forest Range respectively, in between October, 1965 to June, 1967, by corrupt and illegal means and by abusing your position as public servant, obtained pecuniary advantage to the extent of Rs. They are as follows: Firstly : That you being public servants, namely, District Forest Officer, Jyepore Division and the Range Officer of Malkangiri Forest Range respectively, in between October, 1965 to June, 1967, by corrupt and illegal means and by abusing your position as public servant, obtained pecuniary advantage to the extent of Rs. 10,00000/- (ten lakhs) to timber merchants, namely, (1) Dambarudhar Das and 19 others (named in the charge) by enabling them to take dishonestly teak and other species of trees from Government lands by falsely enumerating and passing the said tress as standing on tenants lands and thereby committed an offence specified in Section 5(1)(d) punishable u/s 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and within the cognizance of this Court. Secondly : That you Basudev Mohapatra and Paramananda Mund, being public servants, namely, District Forest Officer, Jeypore Division and Range Officer of Malkangiri Forest Range, respectively, during the period between Jane, 1966 and June, 1967, dishonestly or fraudulently allowed (I) Dambarudhar Das and 18 others (named in the charge) timber-merchants to misappropriate trees standing on Government land by enumerating and passing the same as standing on tenant's lands, which trees were under your control as public servants and thereby committed an offence specified u/s 5(1)(0) punishable u/s 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (Act II of 1947) and within the cognizance of this Court. Aggrieved by the framing of such charges the Petitioner has approached this Court for their quashing. 3. Admittedly the trial before the learned Special Judge would be by the procedure indicated u/s 251-A, Code of Criminal Procedure (See Criminal Law Amendment Act. 1952). Sub-section (2) and (3) of that section which are material may be extracted : (2) If, upon consideration of an the documents referred to in Section 173 and making such examination, if any, of the accused as the Magistrate thinks necessary and after giving the prosecution and the accused an opportunity of being heard, the Magistrate considers the charge against the aroused to be groundless, he shall discharge him. (3) If, upon such documents being considered, such examination, if any, being made and the prosecution and the accused being given an opportunity of being heard, the Magistrate is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence triable under this Chapter, which such Magistrate is competent to try, and which, in his opinion could be adequately punished by him, he shall frame in writing a charge against the accused. 4. Mr. Kanungo contends that the learned Special Judge went wrong in holding that the documents referred to in Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure justified the conclusion that there was ground for presuming that the Petitioner had committed the offence for which he was charge-sheeted. On the other hand, the material would clearly indicate that the charge is groundless. Therefore, the learned Special Judge should have discharged the Petitioner in terms of Sub-section (2) of Section 251-A, Criminal Procedure Code. In support of this contention of his Mr. Kanungo relies upon the two reports of the Chief Conservator of Forests - one dated 18-12-1967 and the other dated 9-2-1968. There is no dispute that these two documents are papers referred to in Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure and were before the Court while the learned special Judge was considering the question of framing of charge. Mr. Naik, the learned Special Public-Prosecutor, who appeared before me does not dispute the facts stated in these two reports. It becomes necessary to refer to portions of those reports. In the first report it has been said, It was found that in the name of tenants' timber many sound teak trees of and above exploitable girth had been felled and removed from Government forests and waste lands by Shri Suresh Chandra Panda (accused) who happens to be the son-in-law of the Range Officer, Malkangiri (accused). While verifying a particular plot bearing plot No. 43 of Khata No. 7 of Manikpur village, the Tahasildar's report recommended that 51 sound teak trees were standing on the said plot. But it was actually found that not a single teak tree grew on that plot. It was a good paddy field and all the said 51 teak trees had been removed from the adjoining Government forests by S.C. Panda, son-in-law of the Range Officer. But it was actually found that not a single teak tree grew on that plot. It was a good paddy field and all the said 51 teak trees had been removed from the adjoining Government forests by S.C. Panda, son-in-law of the Range Officer. Some of the stumps had the property hammer mark of Shri Panda and passing hammer mark of the Forester, Balimela. In Sindhiguda village though some trees had been recommended by the Tahasildar as tenants' holding trees, fallings had been done in the nearby forests and the teak logs were waiting Forester's passing. Similarly near Tikaguda village, we saw some truck-loads of teak logs stacked along the road Govindpalli Balimela bearing property hammer mark of Messrs Utkal Timber Trading Company, and we were informed by the Forester, Balimela that about 500 teak trees had been felled round about Tikaguda village from Government forests. It was further ascertained from the same Forester that felling of this nature and also occurred in other villages of his section whose volume would be 30,000 to 40,000 oft. It was further revealed during the enquiry that a nephew of the Range Officer, Malkangiri and one son of the Ex-Range Officer, Jeypore Sri Negi were also working as the tenants' timber there. When the Forester, Balimela was asked in presence of the Range Officer about his illegal passing, be confessed to have done so under compulsion as his Range Officer himself was involved in the business through his relatives. Besides Balimela section, there are other three sections in the Range where teak trees have been exploited in the same manner. Coming to the role of the accused Forest Officers the report states, It is too early to Bay which of the Forest Officers have connived at these illicit removal excepting the Range Officer, Malkangiri whose implication was obvious. The particular Range Officer, Shri B.B. Mund was in charge of this Range since last three years. Export permits were issued by the Divisional Officer Shri Basudev Mohapatra (Petitioner) who was in-charge of the division from 25-4-1964 to 8-7-1967 ... Removal of tenants' timber is usually checked under the Timber Transit Rules in the areas where Timber Transit Rules are in force. Export permits were issued by the Divisional Officer Shri Basudev Mohapatra (Petitioner) who was in-charge of the division from 25-4-1964 to 8-7-1967 ... Removal of tenants' timber is usually checked under the Timber Transit Rules in the areas where Timber Transit Rules are in force. In Koraput; area there is no Timber Transit Rule, but there is provision in the existing rules for obtaining export permit and getting them checked at the Check gate before any timber is exported outside the district. The Divisional Forest Officer has issued export permits but while doing so, he has not exercised sufficient checks to ensure that trees from Government lands were not removed. Further by issuing coupe permit books to the tenants and timber contractors without adequate safeguards of checking the removal of timbers for export outside the State, he has given enough scope to the unscrupulous timber contractors to play mischief in removing timbers from Government forests in a planned manner with the connivance of Forest and Revenue staff. The Divisional Forest Officer has also not enforced the joint verification of tenants recorded plots and the tress standing over them by both Revenue and Forest Officers which ill very essential and which is usually done in other parts of the State. This lacuna in the procedure has given the Revenue staff scope for giving misleading reports as cited above and escape detection ... The Divisional Forest Officer has verified a few oases himself involving 94 trees in Malkangiri Range out of 21. 399 trees, worked as tenants timbers. There is no doubt that issue of export permits and passing of timber have been done in a light hearted manner, on the basis of reports of lower subordinate of both Forest and Revenue Departments. It is surprising how the Divisional Forest Officer could not know that the Range Officer was doing this tenants' timber business in the names of his relatives in which case he should have exercised more caution and scrutiny before issuing orders for passing the export of the logs. This trade attracted notice when a news item was published in 'Prajatantra' dated 3-5-1967, on which Government had caned for a report. While submitting his report (sic) this, the Divisional Forest Officer admitted that cases had come to his notice where Revenue Officers had given inflated reports on availability of teak trees standing on private holdings. This trade attracted notice when a news item was published in 'Prajatantra' dated 3-5-1967, on which Government had caned for a report. While submitting his report (sic) this, the Divisional Forest Officer admitted that cases had come to his notice where Revenue Officers had given inflated reports on availability of teak trees standing on private holdings. He had also cited cases where illicit removals from Government forests had been detected. In the second report it has been said, From the above it appears that the Amins and the Tahisldar of Malkangiri are mainly responsible for helping the illicit fillings from Government land by issuing certificates, a sample copy of which is enclosed herewith. Subsequent verification of the plots by forest staff who do not possess any village map, has obviously been based on certificates issued by the Tahasildar, specially then the Government plots from which illicit fillings have occurred in many cases have been encroached upon and are being claimed by the tenants as their own. It therefore becomes difficult to say that these plots where encroachments have been done are not tenant plots unless a proper survey is done as is being done at present. The identification of tenant plots can only be done by the Revenue staff with the help of maps they possess and when incorrect certificates are issued by the Revenue staff, it is bound to confuse any subsequent verification. In any case, the forest subordinates should not have wrongly reported that they have verified the plots and thereby misled the D.F.O. (Petitioner) I noticed in S.C. Panda's case that the R.O. Malkangiri has reported that he has verified by means of the plane table which is obviously wrong. Further as it appears from Duruaguda that although 239 trees have been felled and passed, the Forester has shown to have passed 154 trees only. Thus the Forest staff have definitely connived at these illicit fillings. The involvement of the Forest staff in these fillings will be more clear only when the verification of all the plots in all the villages in Malkan Range are completed. There is no charge of any conspiracy. The question for consideration, therefore, is in view of what has been said in these two, reports whether the prosecution case against the Petitioner has any basis. There is no charge of any conspiracy. The question for consideration, therefore, is in view of what has been said in these two, reports whether the prosecution case against the Petitioner has any basis. Section 5(1)(c) and (d) of Act 2 of 1947 provides, (c) if he dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriates or otherwise converts for his own use any property entrusted to him or under his control as a public servant or allows any other person so to do; (d) if he, by corrupt or illegal means or by otherwise abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantages; It has now to be seen whether there is any material available in the records placed before the learned Special Judge to lead to the formation of the opinion that there is ground for presuming that the Petitioner committed the aforesaid two offences. The two reports clearly indicate gross negligence of duty on the part of the Petitioner. There is also enough indication in those two reports that the Petitioner could have detected the depletion of Government forests if adequate safeguards had been taken by him. But I am afraid such allegations could not give rise to criminal liability. In order to sustain the charge either u/s 5(1)(0) or Section 5(1)(d) the criminal animus would be necessary. Negligence to perform duty cast upon a public servant cannot be equated with existence of criminal animus. In the second report there is indication that the subordinates of the Petitioner misled him. Until something more is said it is difficult to impute criminal intention to the Petitioner's activities as the Divisional Forest Officer in relation to passing of tenant's timber for export. 5. Mr. Kanungo placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Surendra Nath v. State 1958 C.L.T. 170 Narasinham, C.J. was dealing with the prosecution of a Treasury Officer who was being prosecuted for embezzlement of Government money. His Lordship stated, It seems thus clear from the aforesaid authorities that mere acts of negligence on the part of the Treasury Officer in complying with the relevant rules of the Treasury Code (assuming that there was negligence) would not suffice to hold that he 'wilfully suffered' the embezzlement of the money by the Treasurer. His Lordship stated, It seems thus clear from the aforesaid authorities that mere acts of negligence on the part of the Treasury Officer in complying with the relevant rules of the Treasury Code (assuming that there was negligence) would not suffice to hold that he 'wilfully suffered' the embezzlement of the money by the Treasurer. There must be further evidence to show that he intentionally omitted to comply with the rules, or else that having been previously warned that such non-compliance would enable the Treasurer to embezzle the money he deliberately connived at such embezzlement by shutting his eyes to what was going on. In that decision reference to Om Prakash Gupta Vs. State of U.P. was made. Dealing with the provisions of Section 5(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act their Lordships in the Supreme Court said, There is vast difference between 'wilfully suffering another' and 'allowing a person to do a particular thing' and in our view the word 'allows' is much wider in its import. 'Wilfully' pre-supposes conscious action while even by negligence one can allow another to do a thing. The learned Special Public Prosecutor does not contend that without the criminal animus mere negligence, even if as a consequence thereof some other public servants get the opportunity of dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriating or otherwise converting for their own use any property entrusted to them or under their control as public servant, would amount to an offence punishable u/s 5(1)(c) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He, however, placed reliance on a decision of the Mysore High Court In Manjoorkhan v. State of Mysore AIR 1962 Mys. 106. The learned judge expressed himself in the following way, In my Opinion, there is nothing particularly recondite or abstruse in the language employed in Sub-section (2) and (3) of section. In the context, the word 'ground' must be taken to have been used in its ordinary dictionary sense, meaning basis, foundation or valid reason. If the documents referred to in Section 173 of the Code and what emerges from the examination of the accused considered in the light of the arguments addressed on behalf of the accused as when as the prosecution furnish a reasonable basis or foundation for presuming that the accused had committed the offence triable under Chapter XXI, the Magistrate shall frame a charge against the accused. If, on the other hand, they furnish no reasonable basis or foundation for the charge against the accused, he should discharge him. There is no doubt that the legislative intention in Section 251-A, Code of Criminal Procedure is that the Magistrate has to decide whether there is a reasonable basis or foundation for presuming that the accused has committed the offence with which he is then charged or there is no such reasonable basis or foundation at all. It may be that, at the trial the material on the basis of which a charge has been framed may not stand the test of cross-examination or may be completely displaced or rendered unacceptable by other evidence which the accused may adduce at the trial. But those considerations become available only at a later stage in the trial and do not enter into the consideration at the stage when the Magistrate is to make up his mind whether or not to frame a charge. As I have already said, in the present case there is lack of material for the criminal animus of the Petitioner and at best on the materials now on record a serious breach of duty and utter negligence have been alleged. In view of this conclusion of mine it would follow that on the documents referred to in Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure which were before the learned Special Judge framing of the charges against the Petitioner for the aforesaid two offences under Central Act 2 of 1947 was not justified. The learned Special Judge on the other hand should have come to hold that the charges against the Petitioner were groundless. I would accordingly allow the application and quash the charges against the Petitioner. I would, however, make it clear that discharging the accused at this stage does not preclude the prosecution from proceeding against the Petitioner if further materials are available. Even the learned Special Judge can do so on the basis of the evidence placed before him in due course.