JUDGMENT D. P. Sood, J.— Petitioners 10 in number, by way of this petition under sections 397 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have assailed the order dated January 27, 1993, passed by the learned Special Judge (Forests), Shimla whereby charges with respect to the commission of offences by each one of the accused were framed. Petitioners seek the quashing of the impugned order. 2. The back-drop of the case, necessary for the decision of this petition, are as under: "The offences committed by the petitioners pertain to the year 1975-76. A-7 to A-9, namely S/Sh. Dharam Pal, Daulat Ram and Palas Ram, were partners of the firm styled as M/s. Suraj Timbers They had agreed to purchase standing trees from the private owners. This firm sold the standing trees so purchased by them to M/s. Gulabu Ram, Sadh Ram of which A-l (Sh. Sadh Ram) is one of the partners." 3. A-2f namely, Sohan Lai Kalta, was Reader to A-10 (Gian Chand Khatana), who was posted as S D O. (C), Theog, at the material time. A-3 (Sh Surat Ram) and A-4 (Sh. Ratti Ram) were posted as Field Kanungo (Revenue) and Block Officer, Forest Department, respectively. The second firm, namely, M/s Gulabu Ram Sadh Ram had again re-sold these trees to another firm, namely, M/s. Three Stars, who had cut and removed the timber, 4. On complaint having been filed by one Shri Shyama Nand Chauhan of H. P Secretariat, Shimla and Smt Kamla Devi, the preliminary inquiry was carried out in another case and during the pendency of that investigation, 1886 scants of timber bearing HRB. hammer were also found, That inquiry also revealed that there was no such H R B. firm registered with the Forest Department nor any such H.R.8. hammer was officially recognised by the said Department. Thus, the timber so seized by the forest officials was handed over on spurdari to A-6, namely, Sh. Shayama Nand Kalta on July 17, 1977 against memo duly signed by the said accused. 5. Petitioners, shown from Sr No. I to 10, have been referred to in this petition as A-l to A-10 respectively. The record reveals that the area in question was demarcated four times. Shayama Nand Kalta on July 17, 1977 against memo duly signed by the said accused. 5. Petitioners, shown from Sr No. I to 10, have been referred to in this petition as A-l to A-10 respectively. The record reveals that the area in question was demarcated four times. First demarcation was alleged to have been theoretically carried out by A-3 The case, set up by the prosecution, against this accused is that he without actually carrying out demarcation of the area, submitted his demarcation report and resultantly issued a certificate to the effect that no tree has been marked by him on the Government land, 6. Second demarcation was carried out by A-10 (Shri Gian Chand). The case set up against him is that he had given wrong demarcation report contrary to the factual position existing at the spot and thereby forged documents to help the other accused persons and thereby caused wrongful loss to the State and wrongful gain to his co-accused. 7. Third demarcation was conducted by Shri P. C. Dogra, the then District Magistrate and the fourth demarcation by Sh. Abhay Pant (both prosecution witnesses) It is on the basis of the last two demarcations coupled with the other material by way of oral as also documentary evidence that the petitioners have been prosecuted for the commission of various offences referred to in the charge framed vide the impugned order. 8. During the course of arguments, Shri Jagdish Vats, Advocate has confined his submissions to the case of A-6 (Shri Shyama Nand Kalta) only. He has vehemently urged that there exists no material on the record to show even a prima facie case against him On the contrary, Shri M. S. Guleria, learned Deputy Advocate General, has drawn my attention to spurdarinama dated 17-7-1977 and the endorsement made on the back thereof with respect to the cutting and removal of timber from various khasra numbers Apart from it, my attention has been drawn to the fact that the said endorsement has been duly signed by A-6 indicating that the timber in question handed over on spurdari to accused (Shyama Nand Kalta) and is stated to have been cut from various khasra numbers referred to therein but it is contrary to the established facts through the evidence of S/Sh Parvesh Negi, Chet Ram, Chandu Ram, Padam Bahadur, P. C. Dogra and Abhay Pant. Rather, the oral as also documentary evidence so collected by the police, reveals that the aforesaid scants numbering 1886 bear H R.B. hammer and there is no such firm registered with the Forest Department nor such hammer has at all been recognised to be an official one used in marking of the trees or the timber so extracted therefrom. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record with their assistance 9. The guidelines laid down in State of Haryana and others v. Ch. Bhajan Lai and others, AIR 1992 SC 604 are as under: "(1) Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F. I. R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under section 156 (I) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of section 155 (2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the F. I. R. or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the F. I. R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under section 155 (2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the F. I. R. or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceedings against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is (instituted to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is (instituted to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is malicious instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. (8) Where allegations in the complaint did constitute a cognizable offence justifying registration of a case and investigation thereon and did not fall in any of the categories of cases enumerated above, calling for exercise of extraordinary powers or inherent powers, quashing of F, I. R. was not justified." The above said judgment has been followed by the Division Bench of this Court in Smt. Pushpa Bhatnagar v State of Himachal Pradesh, Cr. WP 9 of 1993, decided on 1 lth October, 1993. 10. Applying the above-said guidelines to the facts of the instant case, to my mind, it is a case of no evidence against the accused and the charge against him is liable to be quashed. 11. Admittedly, A-6 is the spurdar of 1886 scants of timber bearing H.R B. hammer mark on each one of it. Shri Parvesh Negi, Block Officer has categorically stated that no firm with the name of M/s H.R.B or their hammer mark as "H.R.B " is registered with the Forest Department. The scants were found having H R B mark thereupon They were handed over to A-6 vide memo dated 17-7-1977. The marginal witnesses to this memo are S/Sh. Anil Kumar, a timber merchant and Parvesh Negi, the Block Officer. None of these two marginal witnesses state about the endorsement having been made by A-6 on this document at the material time. Further, their statements have been recorded on 9-11-1977, i. e. much after th 5 date on which the incriminating articles in the form of scants were handed over to A-6. Also, in order to know the author of the endorsement, the prosecution had sought the opinion of handwriting expert in the form of Question 109. No definite opinion could be given as to its author. Also, in order to know the author of the endorsement, the prosecution had sought the opinion of handwriting expert in the form of Question 109. No definite opinion could be given as to its author. It has not been proved by any other evidence on record that endorsement was in the writing and at the behest of A-6 (Shyama Nand Kalta). No doubt, he was the Pradhan of a Gram Panchayat at the material time, yet, no material has been collected by tbe prosecution to show as to who gave the khasra numbers which are 14 in number and referred to in that endorsement from which he is stated to have endorsed the fact that the scants handed over to him were cut and removed from those khasra numbers belonging to private owners. Even, the visual inspection of the original document shows that the signatures as also the endorsement are in different hand as also in different ink. In addition thereto, how and what circumstances impelled him to make the endorsement at the time of handing over of the scants to him when it was known to have been illegally and unauthorisedly cut, removed and hammer marked with an un-registered firm indicated as H R. B.9 remains mysterious. Also, how and in what manner he was connected with either of the accused or bad an interest in the booty, is also not decipherable from the material so collected by the police. The entire circumstances, read together, do not indicate that this accused either conspired with anyone of the accused or helped in the preparation of a false record with the intention that it may be used as a genuine one or with the intention to cause wrongful loss to the Government and wrongful gain to his co-accused. Thus, it appears to be a case of no evidence against this accused. The trial Court did not advert itself to the above said circumstances at the time of framing of charge which ultimately led to the passing of the erroneous impugned order. 12. Therefore, in view of the discussion made above, the revision petition qua him alone is accepted, the charge framed against A-6 (Shyama Nand Kalta) only is quashed. 13. The revision petition in respect of other petitioners is dismissed. The case is ordered to be remanded back to the Court below for its trial in accordance with law. 12. Therefore, in view of the discussion made above, the revision petition qua him alone is accepted, the charge framed against A-6 (Shyama Nand Kalta) only is quashed. 13. The revision petition in respect of other petitioners is dismissed. The case is ordered to be remanded back to the Court below for its trial in accordance with law. The parties shall appear before the trial Court on December 20, 1993. Revision petition dismissed. -