JUDGMENT : B.P. Das, J. - This is an application u/s 482, Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the "Code of Criminal Procedure") at the behest of the three forest officials working under the State Government, Department of Forests with a prayer to quash the order dated 5.8.1999 passed by the learned Judge, Special Court, Angul taking cognizance under Sections 20(b), 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short the' Act') 2. The facts as revealed on perusal of the application as well as the L.C.R. are that on the basis of information lodged by the Inspector of Excise, District Mobile Squad, Angul about seizure of 3120 numbers of hemp plants (Cannabis) from village Udal, Special Case No. 217 of 1998 was registered against unknown persons. As it reveals from Annexure 1, a prayer was made before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Judge, Special Court, Angul for sending the samples of the seized hemp plants for chemical analysis. It was indicated in the said petition that the aforesaid cannabis plants were seized from the reserve forest, for which a special case was instituted on the basis of report of the Inspector of Excise, Mobile squad, Angul disclosing therein that he along with O.I.C., Handapa Police Station, R.I. of village Udal and Tahasildar, Athmallik went to the spot and seized the cannabis so cultivated in an area situated within the reserve forest. Accordingly, P.R. was submitted indicating therein that some unknown culprits cultivated cannabis plant there. Thereafter, F.F. was submitted indicating therein that though the case was true, but there was no clue. On the same day, i.e., on 14.1.1999, an application was filed by the Public Prosecutor with a prayer that the final report submitted by the Inspector of Excise should not be. accepted and a detailed enquiry should be conducted by the Court. The learned Special Judge allowed the prayer and issued summons to the D.F.O., Range Officer, A.C.F.O. fixing 6.2.1999 for their evidence. The Range Officer was examined as witness No. 1 for the prosecution, who is Petitioner No. 3 in this case and during the course of enquiry u/s 202, Code of Criminal Procedure before the Judge, Special Court, Angul, he stated that he was the Range Officer in Hcandapa Range and the area of the Range is approximately 600 square kilometers. The Range Officer was examined as witness No. 1 for the prosecution, who is Petitioner No. 3 in this case and during the course of enquiry u/s 202, Code of Criminal Procedure before the Judge, Special Court, Angul, he stated that he was the Range Officer in Hcandapa Range and the area of the Range is approximately 600 square kilometers. It is further stated by him that there are three reserve forests under his jurisdiction and the spot of detection of hemp plants is 25 kilometers away from the Range Office and the said range was also managed by four Foresters under Petitioner No. 3 and 21 Forest Guards. He categorically stated that he had not received any report regarding cultivation of hemp plants and so he had no occasion to make an enquiry regarding it. P.W. 2 - Suresh Pant is the D.F.O. He had sated that while raid was. conducted no information was given to the D.F.O. and he could only come to know about the fact of seizure two or three days after the raid was conducted. It is also a fact that no forest officers were present at the time of raid. The Tahasildar', Athmallik, P.W. 3, who was appointed as the Executive Magistrate and was remained in charge of the force during the raid, stated that on 22.10.1998 on the request of the Superintendent of Excise, Angul, to assist in the raid, he deputed the Revenue Inspector to demarcate the land. On the direction of the Collector, the Tahasildar was present at the spot and also remained in charge of the force along with the Revenue Inspector. On 28.10.1998 in the early morning the raid was conducted and in his statement he stated. that the Forest LB. was situated at 10 to 15 kMs. away from the spot and the spot was surrounded by the reserve forest within the jurisdiction of the D.F.O., Athmallik and the Range Officer, Handapa. As per him, the raid party found the cannabis plants cultivated on the bank of a stream in the deep reserve forest about 3 to 4 km: away from Udal village. There is no dispute that cannabis plants were grown and found in the deep reserve forest and none of the forest officials was present at the time of seizure or party to the raid. 3. There is no dispute that cannabis plants were grown and found in the deep reserve forest and none of the forest officials was present at the time of seizure or party to the raid. 3. The learned Judge, Special Court, after examination of the witnesses u/s 202, Code of Criminal Procedure, by order dated 5.8.1999 took cognizance against Petitioner No. 1, a Forest Guard, Petitioner No. 2, a Forester. and Petitioner No. 3, the Ranger, who was examined as prosecution witness No. 1 in the proceeding u/s 202 Code of Criminal Procedure Relevant portion of the impugned order, which is under challenge before this Court, reads as follows: It is also admitted fact that no outsider is permitted to go inside the reserve forest as there are certain restriction as deposed by the D.F.O. (P.W. 2). It is also found from the evidence of P.W. 3 the Executive Magistrate that about more than 3000 numbers of cannabis plants were seized during raid. So, apparently the Range Officer Ananda Shankar Patra (P.W. 1) was in charge of that Range. The forester Prasanna Pradhan and Forest Guard Mahendra.Pradhan are in charge of that Range also as stated by P.W. 1. It is not understood as to how they could not detect cultivation of such huge cannabis plants by the side of the forest patrol road. It also transpires from the evidence of P.W. 1 that he used to patrol. xx xx xx xx 4. The aforesaid being the background and the materials basing upon which.cognizance of offence under Sections 20(b), 25 and 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act was taken against the Petitioners. Now the question that arises for consideration is whether the officers who are proceeded against prima facie have committed the offence under Sections 20(b), 25 and 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act. Sections 20(b) 25 and 29 of the Act speak as follows: 20. Punishment for contravention in relation to cannabis- plant and cannabis-Whoever, in contravention of any provision of this Act or any rule or order made or condition of licence granted thereunder (a) cultivates any cannabis, plant; or (b) produces, manufactures, possesses, sells purchases transports, imports inter State, exports inter State or uses cannabis shall be punishable (i) where such contravention relates to Ganja or the cultivation of cannabis plant, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to fifty thousand rupees. (ii) where such contravention relates to cannabis other than Ganja, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to twenty years and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees and which may extend to two lakh rupees. Section 25. Punishment for allowing premises. etc. to be used for commission of an offence-Whoever being the owner or occupier or having the control or use of any house, room, enclosure, space, place, animal or conveyance, knowingly permits it to be used for the commission by any other person of any offence punishable under any provision of this Act, shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to twenty years and shall be liable to fine which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to twenty years and shall be liable to fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees but which may extend to two lakh rupees. Provided that the Court may, for reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a fine exceeding two lakh rupees. xx xx xx xx Section 29. Punishment for abetment and criminal conspiracy- ( 1) Whoever abets, or is a party to criminal conspiracy to commit at. offence punishable under this Chapter, shall, whether such offence be or not committed in consequence of such abetment or in pursuance of such criminal conspiracy and notwithstanding anything contained in Section 116 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) be punishable with the punishment provided for the offence. (2) A person abets, or is a party to criminal conspiracy to commit an offence, within the meaning of this section, who, in India, abets or is a party to the criminal conspiracy to the commission of any act in a place without and beyond India which (a) would constitute an offence if committed within India, or (b) under the laws of such place, is an offence relating to narcotic-drugs or psychotropic substances having all the legal conditions required to constitute it such an offence, the same as or analogous to the legal conditions required to constitute it an offence punishable under this Chapter, if committed within India. 5. 5. The aforesaid being the provisions of the statue, I have to see whether, taking the complaint in its entirety, it constitutes the offence as alleged against the accused-forest officials. Let me first see whether in any manner Section 20(b)-punishment for contravention in relation to cannabis plant and cannabis- is applicable to this case. It is an admitted fact that all the Petitioners are Government servants and Petitioner No. 3 is one of the prosecution witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution. There is no allegation regarding their involvement in production, manufacture, possession of the cannabis nor is there any allegation for allowing the premises to be used for commission of an offence in order to attract the penal provisions of Section 25 of the Act. 6. Admittedly, the land is a reserve forest and belongs to the State. The Petitioners are forest officials. They can never be said to be the owner, occupier or user and there is nothing on record to indicate that knowingly they had permitted other persons for commission of an offence punishable under the provisions of the Act nor is there any allegation that they themselves had indulged in the act complained of. Section 29 of the Act prescribes punishment for abetment and criminal conspiracy. It is an admitted fact that neither the Forest Officers nor any person were arrested by the Excise authorities on the allegation of cultivating the aforesaid cannabis. So the question of roping in the forest officials u/s 29 of the Act for abetting and making criminal conspiracy to commit offence under the Act does not arise. 7. The essential ingredient of criminal conspiracy is an agreement to commit an offence irrespective of the means decided upon to carry out object of the conspiracy, The offence of conspiracy is complete when two 'or more conspirators have agreed to do, or cause to be done, an act which itself is an offence. 8. In the case at hand, if the statements of witnesses including one of the accused persons, who was initially examined as an witness, are taken into consideration, the ingredients to attract the offences under Sections 20(b), 25 and 29 of the Act are totally lacking. The Special Court has proceeded on a premises with a presumption that as because these officers were in charge of the range the cannabis could not have been cultivated without their knowledge. The Special Court has proceeded on a premises with a presumption that as because these officers were in charge of the range the cannabis could not have been cultivated without their knowledge. There is also no material before the Special Judge to come to such a conclusion. The growth of cannabis in the forest land and seizure thereof in absence of Forest Officers can never fasten the forest officers with commission of offence u/s 20(b) of the Act, treating the forest.officials to be in possession or cultivation of cannabis. If the order of congnizance passed by the Judge, Special Court, is allowed to be upheld, then it will lead to catastrophic result because this can even be stretched and bring the officers like Divisional Forest Officer, Conservator, Chief Conservator of Forest, who are ultimately the heads in the hierarchy in the administration of the Forest Department, within the scope or ambit of Section 20(b) of the Act. 9. Learned trial Court should bear in mind that where the punishment is heavy, the degree of scrutiny must be higher. Therefore,- the statements so made by the three public officers should have been necessarily passed through high test or scrutiny before taking cognizance. That apart, the statements of the public officers taken in their entirety do not implicate the present Petitioners. The manner in which the cognizance has been taken against the public officers reveals the non-application of mind on he part of he Judge. Special Court and transpires his over-eagerness or emotion leaping over the rule of law which prompts me to give him a word of caution for the future. 1 fail to understand wherefrom the learned Judge, Special Court, found that the cannabis cultivation was done by these Petitioners or the Petitioners abetted cultivation or hatched a criminal conspiracy for cultivating cannabis or it is done with the knowledge of the Range Officer, Forest Officer or Forest Guards. At this stage it is profitable to quote the relevant portion of the cognizance order: Thus, it is a safest place for cultivation of cannabis plants as there is no interference from the outsiders and it is done with the knowledge of Range Officer, Forester and Forest Guard. If cognizance is not taken and they would not face trial, then there will be no restriction for cultivation of cannabis plants in the reserve forest causing loss to the Government. 10. If cognizance is not taken and they would not face trial, then there will be no restriction for cultivation of cannabis plants in the reserve forest causing loss to the Government. 10. It is unfortunate that a senior Judicial officer has taken cognizance in a serious matter like the offences under the provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act against three government servants without any material before him to proceed against them. 11. In the aforesaid facts, as there is no prima facie material to proceed against the Petitioners. I have no hesitation to set aside the impugned order and cognizance so taken under Sections 20(b), 25 and 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act against the Petitioners. 12. Accordingly, the Misc. case is allowed. Cognizance taken in Special Case No. 217 of 1998 is quashed. Final Result : Allowed