COURT ON ITS MOTION v. MAST RAM TANTA — 1983 DIGILAW 3 (HP)

JUDGMENT V. D. Misra C. J.— An anonymous letter, alleging complicity of Shri J. N. Barowalia, Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Theog, with the accused, who was alleged to be influential, was received by me. It was alleged that the Magistrate has let off the accused lightly by a mesre fine without even going through the challan. It was also alleged that it was done in connivance with the prosecution itself. I sent for the records. After going through the records. I decided to issue a notice of enchantment to accused Mast Ram Tanta (hereinafter referred to as the accused) to show cause why the sentence be not changed to one of imprisonment. Thereafter some anonymous persons sent photostat copies of the record of the investigation conducted by the Directorate of Enforcement which had, at one time, come to the conclusion that a very serious offence had been made out. To be fair to the accused, I placed all these on the record. 2. When the matter came up on 25th August, 1982, I asked the learned Advocate General whether the State was going to support the notice of enhancement issued by me or to oppose it. This I had asked because of the allegations made against the State itself. (I will presently discuss the importance of this case as disclosed by the records). Suffice it to record that when the matter came up on 1st September, 1982 the learned Advocate General, in answer to my query, stated that he would assist the Court. He would not inform me about the stand taken by the Government. In other words, the Government was not prepared to come out openly whether it was interested in supporting the notice of enhancement or opposing it. The Advocate General was informed that since it was his duty, as well as of every lawyer, to assist the Court, it was evident that "the Government, for reasons best known to them, is not willing to take a definite stand." 3. I had also called upon the Advocate General to produce the police diaries of the case. It was done. After going through them, 1 decided to examine the investigating Officer, Inspector Jeet Singh Pujiar, who had not even given the date of the alleged offence in his report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (I will advert to it a little later). It was done. After going through them, 1 decided to examine the investigating Officer, Inspector Jeet Singh Pujiar, who had not even given the date of the alleged offence in his report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. (I will advert to it a little later). I passed this order on 1-9-1982. I had also decided that the accused will be supplied with the copies of documents, which may be used against him, if otherwise permitted under the law. According to a communication received from the Supreme Court, the petition for Special Leave (Cr.) No. 2923 of 1982, filed by the accused against this order, was dismissed on merits" on 14th September, 1982. 4. On the next date of hearing the Advocate General for the first time stated that the State had decided to support the notice of enhancement of sentence. I may straightaway record that except this mere expression of the intention of the Government no serious contention was raised by the Advocate General to enhance the sentence of the accused. After recording the statement of the Investigating Officer, and hearing the arguments of Mr. A. N. Mulla, who had appeared for the accused, I reserved the judgment. However, I made it plain that after going through the records of the Directorate of Enforcement relating to the case, I may re-list the case if find it necessary that further information must be had from the Inspector or any other person of the Directorate of Enforcement. All this was done in order to find out the seriousness of the offence and in order to determine the quantum of sentence which should meet the ends of justice as well as to find out the complicity, if any, of the Magistrate since the seriousness of an offence can be a relevant factor. 5. When I looked at the records placed before me by the Directorate of Enforcement, I found that some papers seemed to have been with-held from the Court. The first letter on the file (file No. 49 placed before me) contained a copy of the letter written by Shri D, S. Minhas, Deputy Director of Enforcement, and addressed to the Director of Enforcement. This copy, instead of being a typed one, was written in band. It had a reference to verbal discussion between the two in which the case was referred to as sensitive. This copy, instead of being a typed one, was written in band. It had a reference to verbal discussion between the two in which the case was referred to as sensitive. I, therefore, asked the Advocate General to produce the original letter as well as its carbon copy. Before I proceed further, X may record the background of the case and the enquiries conducted by the Directorate of Enforcement. 6. Till the first weak of December, 1981 the Directorate of Enforcement was headed by Shri K. N. Kapoor, Deputy Inspector General of Police (Vigilance). An anonymous report was received by the Deputy Director Director of Enforcement, Shri D. S. Minhas. It was dated 30th October, 1981. It was against the accused. The report was to the effect that Mast Ram Tanta, accused, had created havoc by illicit felling of trees. It was also alleged that he had been issued a permit No. 135/81-82 by D. F. O. Rohru (Divisional Forest Officer, Rohru) for transporting wood to Assistant Engineer, P. W. D., Kotkhai, but the accused had removed about 1.000 sleepers to summer Hill, Simla, and thus had caused a loss of about 1J lacs to the State. Sub-Inspector Prem Parkash Sethi was directed to inquire. The inquiry showed that the allegations were correct. The permit collected by Shri Sethi showed cuttings and corrections. The original permit was for 965 sleepers of Deodar to be carried "from Potta to Kotkhai via Kharapathar " However, the word "Kotkhai" It was found out and the word "Simla0 was found written. In the copy of the original permit, which was originally marked only to Kotkhai Forest Check Post, Kharapathar. It was found that the words & Dhalli had been added in separate type. In other words, the permit holder could now transport the sleepers beyond Kotkhai right up to Simla after successfully crossing the Forest Check-post at Dhalli. The Deputy Director of Enforcement directed Shri Setai to verify these over-writings and cuttings. After further enquiry, he reported that "offences under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and 379 IPC/41/42 Forest Act were made out. "It was also reported that Sita Ram, Deputy Range Check Assistant, Kharapathar, had made wrong entries for the transport of this wood in order to help the accused and so he was liable to be prosecuted under section 218 of the Indian Penal Code. "It was also reported that Sita Ram, Deputy Range Check Assistant, Kharapathar, had made wrong entries for the transport of this wood in order to help the accused and so he was liable to be prosecuted under section 218 of the Indian Penal Code. He also reported that even the Range Officer, Jubbal, was liable to be prosecuted under section 218 of the Indian Penal Code. The Deputy Director of Enforcement (Shri Minhas) on 7-11-1981 recorded : "I am fully agreeing with the I. O. The case be registered against M/S Mast Ram Tanta u/s 420/467, 468, 471, 379 IPC, 41/42 IF Act. In this particular case Govt. has been fronded to the tune of over rupees two lacs by forging the permit. Since involvement of R. O-Jubbal & Dy. Ranger, Kharapathar, a case be Registered against them u/s 218 IPC, 109 IPC, 41/42 at PS Jubbal. Against the firm the case be registered at PS Jubbal since the timber has started from Potta, crossed Dhalli Forest Check Post. Please issue the necessary instructions. Since two misconducts arise out of a single transaction set, one case shall serve the purpose and it would suffice if one case is registered at PS Jubbal against Mast Ram Tanta, R. O. Jubbal Dy. Ranger Kharapathar u/s 420/467, 468, 471, 379, 109, 218 IPC & 41/42 of Indian Forest Act." 7. It appears that before any case could be registered the matter was discussed by the Deputy Director of Enforcement (Shri Minhas) with the then Director of Enforcement (Shri Kapoor). A latter dated 7-11-1981 was written by the Deputy Director of Enforcement, The whole inquiry tile was submitted to the Director of Enforcement. This letter gives an inkiling of the importance not only of the case but also of the accused. The relevant part reads : "As per verbal discussion the case being sensitive, the file is being sent to you for perusal and issuing the necessary instructions in this regard at the earliest since the Govt. has been defrauded to the time of over Rs. 2 lacs", (emphasis supplied). 8. The original letter which was produced before me on my insistence contains an endorsement by the Director of Enforcement (Shri Kapoor), The endorsement may be reproduced in full : "(1) Discussed with DD (E), (2) DD may retain the file etc. has been defrauded to the time of over Rs. 2 lacs", (emphasis supplied). 8. The original letter which was produced before me on my insistence contains an endorsement by the Director of Enforcement (Shri Kapoor), The endorsement may be reproduced in full : "(1) Discussed with DD (E), (2) DD may retain the file etc. Case will be brought to the notice of CS/SS(V) for advice on receipt of opinion of PP/DA which is essential." 9. The reference to CS’ is to the Chief Secretary whereas the reference to SS (V) is to Special Secretary, Vigilance. In other words, to Shri K. N. Kapoor, who was not only the Director of Enforcement but was also Deputy Inspector General of Police (Vigilance), the case was of top-most importance which needed advice" not only of the Chief Secretary but also of the Special Secretary, Vigilance. The file was then sent to Shri R. K. Duggal, Public Prosecutor of the Directorate of Enforcement. He opined : "I have gone through the record of the enquiry. I am of the view that prima facie case be got registered u/s/468/420/4711. P. C. and 379 I. P. C, but before it be done it is better if we record the statement of D.F. O. who issued the permit and to ascertain the circumstances under which the cuttings etc. were made in the permit/Pass No. 135/81-82." The opinion is dated 17th January, 1982. 10. The result of the subsequent developments was that suddenly every one agreed that only a case under section 41/42 of the Indian Forest Act will do. Even the public Prosecutor conveniently changed his opinion. He recorded that forgery is not directly proved. Of course lie shut his eyes to the fact that the accused had used the forged permit knowing is to be forged. I will come back to it shortly. Suffice it to record at this stage that in December, 1981 there was a change of the Director of Enforcement. D. I. G. (Vigilance) handed over charge to Shri Lashkari Ram, Superintendent of Police. I will come back to it shortly. Suffice it to record at this stage that in December, 1981 there was a change of the Director of Enforcement. D. I. G. (Vigilance) handed over charge to Shri Lashkari Ram, Superintendent of Police. Moreover, after this final opinion of the Public Prosecutor was obtained, the records were never placed before the Deputy Director of Enforcement (Shri Minhas), When Shri Minhas was on leave on 7th and 8th April, 1982, in these two days the Assistant Director of Enforcement, Shri Hardayal Gupta, Assistant Director of Enforcement, Shri A. S. Gularia, and the Public Prosecutor, Shri Duggal, gave their opinions. The final sanction on the course of action was obtained from Shri A. S. Gularia, Assistant Director of Enforcement on 8th April, 1982 when Suri Minhas, Deputy Director of Enforcement, happened to be on leave. The police diary placed before me shows that it was on 9th April, 1982 that a case under sections 141/42 of the Indian Forest Act got registered at Police Station, Jubbal, through Sub-Inspector Shri Sethi. But investigation was now entrusted to Inspector Pujjar. Statements of some persons were recorded relating to the movement of the wood from one place to another. On 26th April, 1982 the investigating Officer recorded that he happened to meet the accused at 6.45 a. m. at Theog. He was interrogated. At 7 a. m. it is recorded. It was decided to arrest him. The accused was asked to give surety but he was unable to do so. He was, therefore, produced before the magistrate at Theog Shri R. K. Duggal, Public Prosecutor or Directorate of Enforcement, whose headquarters are at Simla, also simultaneously arrived at Theog (it is about one hours driving distance from Simla), The accused pleaded guilty and he was fined Rs. 500/-. 11. Now the trial Court record reveals that the case was registered because the magistrate treated the challan "as being of an urgent nature as the accused is in the police custody". The magistrate records that a copy of the challan was supplied to the accused. It is also recorded that the accused stated that he had no surety to furnish and the notice of accusation be put to him on the same day itself. The notice section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was given to him and the accused pleaded guilty. It is also recorded that the accused stated that he had no surety to furnish and the notice of accusation be put to him on the same day itself. The notice section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was given to him and the accused pleaded guilty. It is recorded that the accused "has thrown himself at the merely of this court. It is further recorded that the accused is convicted of the offences under sections 41/42 of the Indian Forest Act, and "now the case to came up for consideration on the quantum of sentence." This record is obviously created at one go to show that the magistrate had after conviction given an opportunity to the accused on the question of sentence. The presence of the Public Prosecutor and the accused is recorded again. The record reads : "The learned P. P. for the State has conceded that there is no previous conviction against the accused and the accused is a first offender but has argued that the accused should be fined heavily." It may be noticed that the offence was in respect of illegal transportation of wood casting about Rs. 2,00,000/-to Simla. This wood if seized would have been confiscated. But it was not seized since the accused was able to move it on the basis of a forged permit (as already stated, the Public Prosecutor knew all about it, but he decided to ask for fine only instead of punishment of imprisonment which under the Act is upto 6 months). After hearing the submissions of the Public Prosecutor, the magistrate fined the accused Rs. 500/- (this is the maximum fine prescribed). The fine was immediately paid and the accused was set at liberty. 12. I am constrained to record that the magistrate, for some unknown reasons, was also interested in disposing of the case hurriedly. The notice of accusation does not even record the dates of the offence. It may at this stage be noticed that the offence did not consist of transporting the wood at one time but on different dates. In answer to this charge the accused stated that he had by mistake taken the wood to Dhalli from where he had taken it back. In other words, this was a qualified plea of guilt. 13. It may at this stage be noticed that the offence did not consist of transporting the wood at one time but on different dates. In answer to this charge the accused stated that he had by mistake taken the wood to Dhalli from where he had taken it back. In other words, this was a qualified plea of guilt. 13. Shri A. N. Mulla, learned counsel for the accused, who accepted on 15th September, 1982, has contended that there was unholy haste on the part of the prosecution as well as the magistrate. I, entirely agree with him. But what was this unholy haste ? Why plea bargaining took place between the prosecution, the Public Prosecutor, the accused and the Court ? The plea bargaining has been severely condemned by the Supreme Court in Kasambhai Abdulrehmanbhai Seikh etc. v. State of Gujarat and another, [AIR 1980 SC 854.] I will now discuss why it seems to have happened, However, I may at this stage record that on 18th November, 1982 Shri H; L. Sibal appeared for the accused and in very polished indirect manner impressed upon me not to look very deep into the matter since it will amount to an inquisition which has been condemned by the Supreme Court, and that the matter be left to the police. I must make it pain that there was no question of any inquisition by me. I was trying to find out if only the Court was responsible for this miscarriage of justice or the Government and its various officials were the persons mainly responsible to ensure that no adequate sentence was awarded to the accused and the matter was hushed up. 14. The record as well as the statements recorded by me of the persons who had handled this investigation reveal that it was a very "sensitive" case indeed. The whole police force seems to have become paralysed. They had seemed to have touched a very hot stuff. It has come in the evidence that the accused is a resident of Jubbal, home town of the Chief minister. The whole police force seems to have become paralysed. They had seemed to have touched a very hot stuff. It has come in the evidence that the accused is a resident of Jubbal, home town of the Chief minister. The wood was carried in the trucks owned by Jagdish and Padam Singh, the son and the son-in-law of the Chief Minister, If, therefore the case was to be registered, as suggested by Shri Minhas, and proper investigations undertaken, there was likelihood of the son and the son-in-law of the Chief Minister becoming co- accused with the present accused. It is perhaps this "sensitiveness which is referred to in the letter written by the Deputy Director of Enforcement to the Director of Enforcement, 15. Inspector Jeet Singh Pujiar, when asked as to why did he not mention the full facts of the case in his report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and why did he not even mention the dates of the crime, gave a long answer as to how he finally decided to register a case under sections 41/42 of the Indian Forest Act I asked him whether he made any inquiry ; in respect of the trucks in which the timber was removed. He vaguely answered that during the inquiry it was looked into. When asked to give the truck numbers in which the wood was carried, he stated that these were HPS 4686 and HPS-4438. When he was asked whether the driver/owners of the trucks were also liable to be challaned when offence under sections 41/42 of the Indian Forest Act was committed, he answered that they are challaned "If caught at the spot". When I asked him as to who the owners of the trucks in question were, he showed his ignorance. When I asked him whether he [ interrogated the accused about the trucks in which the timber in question was being carried, he evidently lost his power of speech because inspite of repeated questions he remained silent. He would become dumb whenever the ownership of these trucks was asked. When he was asked whether he had found as to who the truck drivers were, his answer was that the truck drivers •could not be traced out, and then stated that he never came to know about their identity. He would become dumb whenever the ownership of these trucks was asked. When he was asked whether he had found as to who the truck drivers were, his answer was that the truck drivers •could not be traced out, and then stated that he never came to know about their identity. When he was asked as to why he did not try find out about the owners of the trucks, he stated : "During the investigation I did what I thought was proper." Thereafter in answer to another question he stated : "I did not think it proper to enquire further." This attitude of this Investigating Officer was not without any reason. When he was asked whether he could find out as to who the owners of the trucks were at the time the offence was committed, he kept silent. He would not answer the question. He was asked whether he was afraid of someone. He, of course, stated that he was not afraid. However, he would still not answer the question. The demeanour of the witness was noticed by me as follows : "I find that the witness is purposely evading the question for some unknown reasons and is still not willing to answer the question which has been translated to him in Urdu." 16. I sent him to the Registering Authority at Simla to find out the names of owners of the trucks. He cams back and informed me that truck No HPS-4438 was owned by one Jagdish. However, he would not give out the name of the father of Jagdish. Finally he stated that he did not know the name of-the father of Jagdish. This was after he had come back after making enquiries from the Registration Authority. With reference to truck No. HPS- 4686 he gave the name of the owner as one Padam. But he would not give any further particulars to identity these two owners. At this stage he said that there was a third truck registered as HPS-8788 which was also used. He was also once more sent back to the Registration Authority to find out the full particulars of these persons. He came back and stated that the full name was Shri Jagdish Thakur, S/o Thakur Ram Lal, R/o Potta, P. O. Dhar, Tehsil Jubbal Thakur Ram Lal, is the Chief Minister). He was also once more sent back to the Registration Authority to find out the full particulars of these persons. He came back and stated that the full name was Shri Jagdish Thakur, S/o Thakur Ram Lal, R/o Potta, P. O. Dhar, Tehsil Jubbal Thakur Ram Lal, is the Chief Minister). The full name of the other person was Shri Padam Singh S/o Shiv Saran Dass, Partner Dass Industries, Rohru, the is the son-in4aw of the Chief Minister). The "sensitiveness" of the case now becomes obvious. 1 cannot believe that he did not know about the owners of the trucks or that he did not come to know about them during the investigation. But his demeanour showed the terror for which he would not open his mouth whenever the names of the two owners were asked. It may be remembered that investigation was taken over from Sub-Inspector P. P. Sethi, who had dared to suggest registration of a case for various offence under the Indian Penal Code, and handed over to Inspector Pujiar for investigation of a case under the Indian Forest Act. 17. The anxiety of the prosecution to finish up the case at once is apparent from the following. . Inspector Pujiar would have us believe that he met the accused at Theog at 6-45 A. M. on receiving a secret information, though he did not record this fact in the police diary. He agreed that he had searched the person of the accused at the time of his arrest at 7 A. M. though he never cared to prepare a search memo. Now, the accused, who had clandestinely removed wood worth lakhs, is stated to have declined to give surety while being arrested under sections 41/42 of the Indian Forest Act. Believe it or not. After a few hours later he was able to produce Rs. 500/ when the Magistrate fined him. 18. I may now straightaway go to the statement of the Public Prosecutor. As already stated, he was of the opinion that a case of forgery was made out and it should be registered but later on had come to the conclusion that registration of a case under sections 41/42 of the Indian Forest Act would suffice. He grudgingly admitted before me that the permit in question was forged. As already stated, he was of the opinion that a case of forgery was made out and it should be registered but later on had come to the conclusion that registration of a case under sections 41/42 of the Indian Forest Act would suffice. He grudgingly admitted before me that the permit in question was forged. The only reason given by him for not getting the case registered for forgery was because there was no evidence against the accused of his having forged the permit. It was state by him that during preliminary investigation by the Directorate of Enforcement it came to light that the accused had gone to one Hari Singh, a clerk in the Forest department, who had made these changes at the behest of the accused, but there was no mens tea on the part of the accused. In other words, according to this Public Prosecutor, no case of cognizable offence can be registered unless the accused is also found out. It was indeed a very strange line of thinking of this Public Prosecutor who had been specially deputed to the Directorate of Enforcement, Though he states that the offences under section 41/42 of the Indian Forest Act were committed by the accused on 18ih, 23rd, twice on 26th, and twice on 29th October, 1981, when the wood valued at about rupees two lakhs was moved on the basis of a forged permit across Forest Check-Post Dhalli, he was of the opinion that punishment of imprisonment was not called for. The maximum amount of Rs. 500, in his opinion fully met the ends of justice. He was specifically asked whether the policy of the state was to ask only for fine even in such serious cases. His answer was that now instructions have been issued to ask for punishment of imprisonment. In other words, the Public Prosecutor was acting under the instructions of the State. The instructions evidently were not to ask for imprisonment but only to ask for punishment of fine. It was also stated by him that at no stage the Government decided to ask for enhancement of punishment in the instant case. In other words, the Public Prosecutor was acting under the instructions of the State. The instructions evidently were not to ask for imprisonment but only to ask for punishment of fine. It was also stated by him that at no stage the Government decided to ask for enhancement of punishment in the instant case. It may be noticed that though the Public Prosecutor did say that the notice of accusation which was read in his presence did not make any reference to the dates on which the alleged offence was committed, in his opinion this was a proper notice and it was not necessary to mention the dates of the alleged offence. He, of course, later on stated that notice of accusation should have mentioned the dates on which the offence was committed. 19. The whole conduct of the investigating agency as well as of Public Prosecutor leaves no doubt that they had entered into an understanding with the accused and the rest was an eye wash. It was apparently agreed between them that the accused would plead guilty, the public Prosecutor would ask for maximum fine, and all will live, happily thereafter. Otherwise I fail to understand why the Investigating Officer mentions in his report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that the accused admits bringing the wood to check-post Dhalli by mistake and then taking it back. Alongwith this report a copy of the entries in the register maintained by this checkpost showing that the wood crossed the check-post and was taken to Simla on various dates has been produced. There is nothing to show ii the accused took back the wood in question from Simla to Kotkhai. Moreover, the Investigating Officer did not cite any witnesses to prove the said entries of the register of the check-post. Now, if the accused was to plead not guilty how was the Public Prosecutor going to prove the offence? if this was not a clear care of plea bargaining to shush up a serious case, what else could it be ? As I will presently discuss, this arrangement seemed to have been settled because of some other important considerations. 20 Let me look at the conduct of the State in the present proceedings. if this was not a clear care of plea bargaining to shush up a serious case, what else could it be ? As I will presently discuss, this arrangement seemed to have been settled because of some other important considerations. 20 Let me look at the conduct of the State in the present proceedings. I have already stated that, to begin with, the Advocate General was not instructed to support the notice of enhancement of sentence but was only instructed to assistant the Court. I may also repeat that the record of the Directorate of Enforcement produced before me did not contain the letter addressed to the Director of Enforcement as well as its carbon copy. I had, therefore to find out from Shri Minhas as to what happened to these documents When he was being examined, he was asked whether the file produced by the Directorate was the same which he had been handling in respect of the present offence. I was shocked to know that some important papers had been with-held from me. Shri Minhas stated : "there were other challans also which showed that the timber had gone to the Summer Hill Railway Station on the basis of the same permit." In other words, these papers would have clearly shown that the accused had not only successfully transported the wood to Simla but had also succeeded in transposing it out of the State. According to Shri minhas while he was discussing this case with Shri Kapoor, the then Director of Enforcement, it was the latter who remarked that "the case being sensitive the file be put to him before action is taken. Of course Shri Minhas goes on to say that he did not know about the "sensitivty" at that time. He stated that by the end of December, 1981 or January, 1982 some reports in the newspapers appeared which were to the effect that some contractor having high political connections was involved. In his opinion the permit was forged and that is why he recommended registration of a case under various sections of the Indian Penal Code. 21. I examined Shri Lashkari Ram, Director of Enforcement, to find why full records were not placed before me. In his opinion the permit was forged and that is why he recommended registration of a case under various sections of the Indian Penal Code. 21. I examined Shri Lashkari Ram, Director of Enforcement, to find why full records were not placed before me. He stated that he never handled this case and that he was looking at the file for the first time in the Court, He had taken over as Director of Enforcement sometimes in the first week of December, 1981, and he did not remember whether his predecessor, Shri Kapoor or Shri Minhas discussed this case with him. But Shri Minhas states that he remembers discussing the case with him. The Director would he us believe that he never even heard the name, of the accused earlier. Surprisingly his memory completely failed in Court. He was constantly taking shelter under amnesia. Though he is the Director of Enforcement, he is not interested about the news about the illicit felling of trees in the State. When asked if lie kept himself upto-date about the news items in various newspapers regarding illicit felling of trees, instead of a straight answer he Stated “No, we do not have the practice of keeping the cuttings of newspapers in the office." Alter looking at the original letter sent by the Deputy Director of Enforcement, he stated that he had seen this letter a few days ago when it was given to him by his predecessor Shri Kapoor. He would have us believe that he did not question Shri Kapoor as to why he had taken away this letter with him while giving charge of the post of Director of Enforcement, and what was the "sensitive" referred to in the letter. He showed his complete ignorance whether any news-item appeared in the newspapers about the present contract having high political connections. He would us believe that he never know that the wood in question was ever transported in the trucks owned by the son and the son-in-law of the Chief Minister. He went to the extent of deposing that he never saw file No. 49 which had been produced by the Advocate General and which belongs to his department. He would us believe that he never know that the wood in question was ever transported in the trucks owned by the son and the son-in-law of the Chief Minister. He went to the extent of deposing that he never saw file No. 49 which had been produced by the Advocate General and which belongs to his department. He was asked whether after 11 months of his being the Director he had come to know about Mast Ram Tanta being a well known forest lessee of Jubbal, he answered that he was minor lessee. This answer he readily adopted when I suggested to him that perhaps he was a minor lessee. 22. In order to find out why the original letter was held back from the Court, I decided to examine Shri K. N. Kapoor, D. I. G. (Vigilance). He was at pains to give long explanations for every short question I asked. He had taken away the letter because the joint record was maintained in the office of the D. I. G. (Vigilance) and Director of Enforcement and since the replies were required to be given in respect of vigilance matters etc. In other words, he had treated the letter written by the Deputy Director of Enforcement, Shri Minhas, as a matter relating to vigilance. He stated that the carbon copy of this letter was not with him and should have been with the Deputy Director of Enforcement or Director of Enforcement. It may be noticed that the Deputy Director had since been transferred out of Simla and the carbon copy was produced by the Advocate General. Evidently this must be from the office of the Director of Enforcement. In other words, this letter was with the Directorate of Enforcement but, for some unknown reasons, was kept back from me. Shri Kapoor also conveniently took shelter under loss of memory. He did not remember if he had used the word "sensitive" while discussing the matter with Shri Minhas. His only explanation to take advice from the Chief Secretary and the Special Secretary (Vigilance) was that more than one departments were involved. These departments were Public Works Department and the Forest Department. According to him there was every likelihood of the gazetted and non-gazetted officers being involved and, therefore the matter had to be referred to the competent authority of the Government for containing orders. These departments were Public Works Department and the Forest Department. According to him there was every likelihood of the gazetted and non-gazetted officers being involved and, therefore the matter had to be referred to the competent authority of the Government for containing orders. He also did not recollect whether this matter was discussed by him with Shri Lashkari Ram when he handed over the charge. When he was asked whether the file as placed before the Court was the one which he had the occasion to through, he showed his inability since the matter was old. 23. If the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Vigilance) hesitates to come out with facts, how could one expect other Police Officers to touch this "sensitive" matter. It appears that the moment it was realised that the investigations in this case would have rep-ercussions on the son and the son-in-law of the Chief minister, the whole effort was to bury the case fathoms deep. One of the methods was to eliminate the Deputy Director, Shri Minhas, who had categorically suggested registration of a case under various sections of the Indian Penal Code. Even Shri Duggal, the Public Prosecutor, had agreed about it. By some strange twist everyone conveniently opined that only a case, if at all, under sections 41/42 of the Indian Forest Act was made out. Now every officer conveniently shut his eyes to the facts. It was better for them to keep their eyes closed. How could they afford to direct the registration of a case under various sections of the Indian Penal Code ? They very well knew that the moment a case was registered, its final result ha1 to come from the court. Even if the investigating agency reported that no case was made out it was for the Court to agree to it or not to agree. So it appears that the convenient method decided upon was to register a case under the Forest Act, go to the court, plead quality, ask for fine only, pay up the fine, and bury the case. Everyone, including the investigating officer, the Public Prosecutor, and Director of Enforcement, fell in line I take it that hand-picked persons must have been appointed in the Directorate of Enforcement, and these were persons with selective memories and convenient conscience. 24. Everyone, including the investigating officer, the Public Prosecutor, and Director of Enforcement, fell in line I take it that hand-picked persons must have been appointed in the Directorate of Enforcement, and these were persons with selective memories and convenient conscience. 24. It has been contended during the arguments that I should not order the registration of a case under various sections of Indian Penal Code as opined by the Deputy Director of Enforcement. It is not denied that the moment the commission of a cognizable offence comes to light, a case must be registered irrespective of the fact whether the offender is known it is well settled that the court takes cognizance only of the offence. In the instant case the cognizable offences are writ large. Irrespective of the fact as to who forged the permit in question, the permit has been forged. It has been used as genuine and the wood has been moved through Dhalli on the basis of that permit in various trucks on diverse dates. No reason has been advanced why I should not direct the registration of a case relating to a cognizable offence alter I have come to know of it. I would therefore, direct that a case be registered for offences as suggested by the Deputy Director of Enforcement, Shri Minhas. I would also suggest that the investigation be handed over to an independent agency since even the D. I. G. (Vigilance), who is supposed to be the most independent and important official, as well as the Directorate of Enforcement, have failed to perform their duties. I will suggest that the State, in order to keep up its reputation for fairness, should entrust the case to the Central Burean of Investigation. This will be necessary also in order lo assure the public that scandals are not swept under the carpet it will also ensure the States anxiety to stop illicit felling of trees, if there is any. I can not forget that trees and the forests are a national heritage and no one, howsoever high, should be spared if he is found guilty if it is indeed the anxiety of the nation to preserve the forests. 25. I would have had no hesitation in enhancing the sentence to one of imprisonment but find that the whole trial is illegal. 25. I would have had no hesitation in enhancing the sentence to one of imprisonment but find that the whole trial is illegal. Not only there was unholy haste but the plea of guilt was result of plea barganing and so the trial must b£ quashed and set aside. The case is remanded for re-trial according to law. The case is directed to be tried by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Simla, The parties are directed to appear before him on March I, 1983. Order accordingly.