Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 152 (PNJ)

Gurmail Batwa v. Onkar Singh

2002-02-04

HARJIT SINGH BEDI

body2002
Judgment H.S.Bedi, J. 1. The petitioners No. 1 to 3 were the Chief Engineer, Executive Engineer and Sub-Divisional Engineer, respectively, in the Public Works Department (Buildings and Roads Branch) in the State. The State of Punjab issued a sanction for the construction of a high level bridge over the Saggran Choe crossing on the Dasuya-Hajipur Road in the year 1987, to be constructed by the department. The department submitted all the details and plans to the Forest Department and after a persual thereof, the Divisional Forest Officer, vide his letter dated February 25, 1991, conveyed the information that the Forest Department had no objection to the construction of the bridge. On February 4, 1991, petitioner No. 2 had also written a letter to the District Forest Officer, Hoshiarpur requesting him to instruct the concerned staff to remove the trees so that the construction work would go on unimpeded. The Forest Department vide the letter dated September 18, 1992 asked respondent No. 3 to mark the trees which were required to be removed. The marking was completed and information thereof was also conveyed to the Forest Department thereafter. As the trees had not been removed despite numerous requests and as the Chief Minister was to open the bridge for public use, petitioner No. 2 addressed a letter dated December 8, 1992 to the Forest Officer requesting him for the urgent removal of the trees. It is the petitioners case that the Forest Officer had got the trees cut thereafter and removed the timber from the site. The Forest Department, however, filed a complaint (Annexure P-1 to the petition) dated 11.2.1993 against the petitioners for their prosecution under Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 , alleging that the trees had been got cut by the petitioners and as such they were liable to be tried for the aforesaid offences. The Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Dasuya vide his order dated May 28, 1993 summoned the petitioners to stand trial. 2. The present petition for quashing of proceedings has been filed by the three accused alleging that the Magistrate could not have taken cognizance of the allegations and summoned the accused as the sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had not been obtained by the respondents prior to the filing of the complaint. 3. 2. The present petition for quashing of proceedings has been filed by the three accused alleging that the Magistrate could not have taken cognizance of the allegations and summoned the accused as the sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had not been obtained by the respondents prior to the filing of the complaint. 3. A written statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents, wherein the broad facts have not been denied. It has been pleaded that the protection under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was available only when the officials were discharging their duties in their official capacity and working for the welfare of the State. 4. I have gone through the record with the help of the learned counsel for the accused. 5. It is clear from the record that the proposal to cut the trees in question had been mooted before the Forest Department and permission to remove the trees had been granted. From the complaint, it is clear that there is no allegation whatsoever that the accused had cut the trees and mis-used the timber thereafter. It is thus clear that the removal of the trees was essential for the optimum use of the bridge. In this situation, it is evident that the sanction under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was necessary before the prosecution could have been launched against the petitioners, who were in Government service and were discharging their duties as such. The petition is accordingly allowed and the complaint (Annexure P-1) and the summoning order (Annexure P-2) are quashed.