1. This revision is directed against order dated 02.11.1991 propounded by learned Special Judge, Anti Corruption, Jammu, whereby respondents who happen to be the accused in criminal case entitled ˜State v. Romesh Chander & others™ for offences under section 5(2) of J&K Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006, sections 120-B, 406/420 RPC, section 6 of the Forest Act and section 9 of the J&K Nationalization of Forest Working Ordinance, 1986, stood discharged. 2. Facts relevant for the disposal of this revision, emanated from record, put tersely, are that respondents 5 to 7 namely Sudhir Kumar, Sharat Kumar and Davinder Kumar were granted lease to extract timber from compartments nos.55-56, Bani Range of Billawar Division. Lease was granted on 28.04.1978 and was to remain effective till 31.12.1986. The working period in the leased out compartments was further extended upto 31.12.1987. The lessees, in fact, intended to launch 45,125 scants from the allotted compartments in terms of agreement and their papers were under process. It was during the currency of the lease agreement that government order came to be passed on 22.02.1985 directing the lessees to complete the extraction of the timber upto 03.09.1984 and thereafter unsalvaged timber would stand vested in the State Government. Thereafter, J&K State Nationalization of Forest Working Act, 1985 was enacted on 24.09.1985 and under the provisions of the said Act, all timber lying within the demarcated forests became the absolute property of the State Government with effect from the aforesaid date notwithstanding any lease or agreement subsisting on that date. Respondent- M/S Sudhir & Company filed a writ petition challenging the validity of the Act and the order passed by the Hon™ble High Court reads as under:- The DFO, Billawar is appointed as Commissioner who shall go to the launching sites in respect of the compartment no.55-56 Basohli, Bani, Range Billawar Division and shall ensure that no timber is launched in the nallah after the passing of this order i.e. 13th of November, 1985 by the petitioner. The DFO, Billawar shall however not interfere with the timber already launched in the nallah. The DFO, Billawar shall however not interfere with the timber already launched in the nallah. The said timber shall be permitted to be brought by the petitioner, through his labour at his own risk and cost and without prejudice to the rights of the parties up to the western bank of river Ravi, opposite to the collection point Shahpur Kandi @ page-SC2402 located on the eastern bank of river Ravi within the State of J&K. The petitioner shall have the timber already launched in the nallah brought to the western bank of river Ravi, as noticed above, under the supervision of DFO/Billawar or his nominees. The petitioiner shall have no right or lien over the timber so brought to the western bank river Ravi. Save as may be decided subsequently by the Court on the disposal of the writ petition. The timber when brought to the western bank of river Ravi shall be stocked there against proper receipt and shall remain under the charge and control of the Forest Department and the petitioner shall not cause any interference in that regard. This may subsequently be varied or modified in that behalf by either of the parties after notice to the opposite party.� 3. By the aforesaid order, the lessees were allowed to float down the stocks launched by them upto 13.11.1985. By another order dated 30.01.1986, the lessees were required to hand back the stocks to the department within the boundary of the J&K State but on the basis of second order they were required to collect the stocks at Khairi, pay the royalty and get Form no.25. By another order dated 30.01.1986, the lessees were required to hand back the stocks to the department within the boundary of the J&K State but on the basis of second order they were required to collect the stocks at Khairi, pay the royalty and get Form no.25. It is stated that Divisional Forest Officer, Billawar, appointed as Commissioner by the Hon™ble High Court vide interim order dated 13.11.1985, proceeded to the spot on 24.11.1985 and gave sufficient time to the partners of the Firm- M/S Sudhir & Company to remove the considerable number of scants in addition to the scants already floated unauthorizedly in the Nallah within the demarcated forests, which infact had become the property of the State of J&K. It also reveals that in pursuance of criminal conspiracy of respondents 5 to 7, the partners of the firm-M/S Sudhir & Company, with the officers of the forest department, respondents 1 to 4, manipulated and fabricated fictitious statements certifying that 45,125 scants have been taken out from the forest and were stocked in the Nallah and thereby conferred undue benefit to respondents 5 to 7 and caused huge loss to the State exchequers. It was also alleged that lessees in collusion with D.F.O., Pathankot, on 19.03.1986 obtained permit for collection and permission for transportation of stocks from Shahpur Kandi to their Sale depot at Pathankot on 20.03.1986 without informing the Forest Department of J&K State and without ensuring that timber infact actually belong to lessees. On the report of the Conservator of Forests, Jammu, First Information Report no.38/1986 was registered with Police Station, Basoli but subsequently the investigation stood transferred to the Vigilance Organisation vide order dated 13.05.1985 issued by the Home Department. The Vigilance Organisation registered F.I.R.no.30/1986 with the Police Station, Vigilance Organisation, Jammu, and proceeded with the investigation for offences under sections 5(2) P.C. Act 2006, 406/420/120-B RPC, 6 Forest Act and section 9 of the J&K Nationalization of Forest Working Ordinance 1986. 4. Respondents/accused were sent up for trial on the conclusion of investigation by presenting a challan before the competent Court. 4. Respondents/accused were sent up for trial on the conclusion of investigation by presenting a challan before the competent Court. The Trial Court, however, after hearing the parties and scanning the material on record including the documents referred in the challan held that no prima facie offence showing suspicion much-less strong suspicion made out against the accused, dismissed the challan and discharged the accused in resultant thereof vide order dated 02.11.1991, which became the subject matter of challenge before this Court in revision. 5. I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and considered their rival contentions in context with the relevant provisions of law touching the matter in controversy. 6. Adverting to the material on record, it is indisputably gatherable that main accusation against the accused/respondents 5 to 7 found in the report of the Conservator of Forests, Jammu, which forms the basis of F.I.R. is that respondents 5 to 7 had removed 45,125 scants without handing over the same to the Forest Department and transported the timber to their sale depot at Pathankot in collusion with D.F.O., Pathankot after obtaining permission on 20.03.1986. Stock was stated to have been removed from Shahpur Kandi to their sale depot at Pathankot. The F.I.R. further disclosed that the papers of the lessees for grant of permission were under consideration when the direction was issued by the High Court permitting the lessees to take the stocks which was infloat in the Nallah. D.F.O., Pathankot, has not been arrayed as accused in the challan. The Incharge Felling, Forest Guard, Bani has submitted a report dated 01.09.1985, which reveals that the scants have been stacked outside the forest and on counting were found correct. This report also bears the attestation of Range Officer, B.O. and D.F.O. of the Forest Department. It is further found from the record that so far as work in compartments nos.55-56 is concerned, the operation of the government order dated 22.02.1984 had been stayed by the hon™ble High Court vide order dated 12.03.1986. By another order passed by the High Court on 13.11.1985, D.F.O., Billawar was appointed as Commissioner and directed to visit the launching site of compartments nos.55-56 and ensure that no timber is launched by the petitioners after 13.11.1985 in the Nallah. By another order passed by the High Court on 13.11.1985, D.F.O., Billawar was appointed as Commissioner and directed to visit the launching site of compartments nos.55-56 and ensure that no timber is launched by the petitioners after 13.11.1985 in the Nallah. By the aforesaid order, it was further directed that D.F.O. shall not interfere with the timber already launched in the Nallah. The lessees were, however, informed by the D.F.O. (Commissioner) vide his communication dated 24.11.1985 that 10,000 scants lying inside the compartment no.55 shall not be launched in the Nallah. 7. The Trial Court while dealing with the allegations against the accused/respondents 5 to 7 about the removal of timber scants from demarcated forests unauthorizedly and thereafter launched in the Nallah and collected at Kheri from where it was taken to their Sale Depot, Pathankot after taking permit from D.F.O., Pathankot. Trial Court referred to the order of the High Court dated 30.01.1986 by which petitioners herein (respondents 5 to 7) were permitted to collect the timber at Kheri on the bank of Sewa Nallah and thereafter were permitted to be taken to their sale depot on payment of royalty in terms of the agreement. That the Forest Department was further directed to issue Form No.25 in favour of the Firm. The Trial Court further referred to the order dated 12.08.1987 passed by the hon™ble High Court vide which writ petitioners (respondents 5 to 7) were permitted to transport 10,000 scants to their sale depot at Pathankot on furnishing bank guarantee. The order passed by the hon™ble High Court also mentioned that the payment of royalty had already been paid by the lessees to the department and there is no dispute in this regard. The Trial Court also found that the report of the Commissioner revealed that the timber was infloat in Akhro Nallah outside the demarcated forests. 8. The record further reveals that when the timber was seized, lessees approached the High Court seeking quashment of the F.I.R.no.38/1996 registered by the S.P., Kathua, on the report of the Conservator of Forests, Jammu. The order with regard to the seizure of the timber was quashed by the hon™ble High Court but not the F.I.R., as the matter was under investigation. The order with regard to the seizure of the timber was quashed by the hon™ble High Court but not the F.I.R., as the matter was under investigation. The matter was again taken to the hon™ble Supreme Court where a direction was given to the lessees/accused to furnish bank guarantee to the extent of Rs.35 lacs and in case remaining part of the timber is sold, the lessees on furnishing bank guarantee can get the sale proceeds. 9. The question arises whether the material collected during investigation by the Vigilance Organisation, prima facie, discloses that 45,125 scants of timber were removed unauthorizedly by the lessees from the demarcated forests after 13.11.1985 or were in-float in the Nallah and stacked outside the demarcated forests. It is further required to be gathered from the documents and material on record that whether the lessees entered into criminal conspiracy with the forest officials and fabricated the record showing that the timber was already stacked by the lessees outside the demarcated forests on the relevant date. The oral evidence of the witnesses recorded during investigation was that they had seen the ˜Mahan™ of timber floating in the Nallah on 11.03.1985. The statement of Sh. M. S. Bahri, DFO, is to the effect that on the basis of inquiry made by him, he learnt that the lessees in disobedience of the order of the High Court launched the timber on 16.11.1985 and which was stopped by Sh. S.P. Khajuria, DFO, on 24.11.1985. Whatever Mr. Bahri has stated was not what he has seen himself but was gathered during inquiry from others. The Trial Court also referred to the statement of Bishan Raj, who had gone on spot to verify the location of timber and found that 35,000 scants were on launching point and 17,000 scants were below the launching point in Akhroo Nallah. The statement of Tehsildar was also referred with regard to the fact that the Akhroo Nallah was in possession of Revenue Department and is not within the demarcated forests. After going through the statements of the witnesses recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. including that of the forest department to which the Trial Court had referred and found that 40,000/45,000 scants were lying outside the compartments nos.55-56 i.e. demarcated forests. After going through the statements of the witnesses recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. including that of the forest department to which the Trial Court had referred and found that 40,000/45,000 scants were lying outside the compartments nos.55-56 i.e. demarcated forests. Nallah is a State land in the Revenue record and the timber lying on its bank, as the trial court found from the statements of the witnesses recorded during investigation, was outside the demarcated forests. The Trial Court from the material placed on record further found that neither there is any evidence with regard to the partnership between Sharat Chander and Davinder Gupta in the Firm nor evidence of criminal conspiracy of the forest officials with the lessees. 10. The report of the D.F.O., Khajuria, is explicity with the alleged violation of the J&K State Nationalization of Forest Working Act. The Trial Court also did not find any documentary evidence on record showing that the documents were fabricated by the accused persons. The evidence on record further does not show that the timber was lying within the demarcated forests where from it had been launched in the Nallah. The timber, in fact, according to the respondents, was lying in the Nallah and the said Nallah is shown in the Revene Record as State land. This clearly shows that on the relevant date, the timber scants were in-float in the Nallah which is not a demarcated forests land. The material on record further does not disclose an unauthorize removal of the scants from the demarcated forests by the accused/respondents 5 to 7 allegedly in conspiracy with the forest officers/officials/respondents 1 to 4 after 13.11.1985. 11. Even Mr. B. S. Salathia, learned Sr. Additional Advocate General appearing for the petitioners, could not point out from the record to show that in pursuance of conspiracy between the forest officials with the partners of the firm/respondents 5 to 7, about 40,000/45,000 scants have been unauthorizedly removed from the demarcated forests after the relevant date and in violation of the Act or the direction of the hon™ble High Court. 12. Assuming but not admitting, that there has been violation of order passed by the High Court, the matter could have been taken up with the hon™ble High Court and not by registration of a case and thereafter production of challan in the Court. 12. Assuming but not admitting, that there has been violation of order passed by the High Court, the matter could have been taken up with the hon™ble High Court and not by registration of a case and thereafter production of challan in the Court. I am afraid, if any, challan could be produced based on the report of the Commissioner appointed by the High Court when its validity and authenticity is to be seen by the High Court. The material is also lacking to prove a conspiracy between the parties to do an illegal act by illegal means to prima facie disclose the offence. The prosecution, thus, from the aforesaid material could not make out a case that the timber, in fact, was lying in the demarcated forests and not in-float in the Nallah on the material date. The timber, according to the evidence collected, oral and documentary, has been proved to be lying in the Nallah, which according to the statements of the Revenue authorities is a State land shown in the Revenue Record and not in the demarcated forests. As regards the violation of the Act by the respondents 5 to 7, the Act came to be struck down by the High Court on 13.12.1985. The Jammu & Kashmir Nationalization of Forest Working Ordinance No.5 of 1986 was passed on 31.01.1986 with retrospective effect from 24.09.1985. It would appear that the Ordinance lapsed and subsequently another Ordinance was issued on 16.12.1986 which was replaced by the Jammu & Kashmir Nationalization of Forest Working Act, 1987 which came into effect from 21.04.1987 with retrospective effect from 24.09.1985 since the Ordinace 5 of 1986 was given effect from 24.09.1985. 13. Turning to the case in hand, Firm- M/S Sudhir & Company was allotted forest lease of compartments nos.55-56, Bani Range of Billawar Division. On 24.09.1985 Jammu & Kashmir Nationalization of Forest Working Act 1985, was promulgated. Under the provisions of the said Act, the extraction and working of the timber in the leased compartment was to be stopped forthwith and the timber lying in the demarcated forests was deemed to be the property of the State Government and the timber lying outside the demarcated forests was deemed to be the property of the forest lessees. In other words, forest lessees were not allowed to remove the timber from the demarcated forests. 14. In other words, forest lessees were not allowed to remove the timber from the demarcated forests. 14. The allegation against the respondents is that respondents 1 to 4, who happened to be the forest officials, in conspiracy with respondents 5 to 7, partners in M/S Sudhir & Co., removed the timber from the demarcated forests during the period when the Act was in force. The constitutional validity of the afore-mentioned Act of 1985 was challenged in the High Court. The High Court declared the provisions of the Act of 1985 as violative of Articles 19(1)(f) & 31(f) of the Constitution of India. Faced with the situation arising out of the striking down of the aforesaid Act of 1985, the State Government came out with an Ordinance namely J&K Nationalization of Forest Working on 31.01.1986. This Ordinance contains some modification of the Act of 1985. A provision for payment of compensation was made by re-enacting the penalty clause of the earlier Act. This Ordinance further came to be repealed by the J&K Nationalization of Forest Working Act, 1987, published in the Government Gazette on 21.04.1987. The consequence of the repeal was dealt with in section 11 of this Act. Section 11(2) of the Act, 1987, provides as under:- (2) Notwithstanding such repeal anything done, any action taken or any saving made (including any appointment made or any amount determined or paid or any notification or order issued) shall be deemed to have been done, taken or made in the corresponding provision of this Act.� 15. The respondents are charged for having committed certain offences which would have been the offences under the Act of 1985, had that Act continued to remain in force cannot be now dealt with and proceeded under the Ordinance of 1986 or the Act of 1987. 16. Mr. B. S. Salathia, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the accused as aforesaid are stated to have committed the offences when the Act of 1985 was in force. So after the Act was declared ultra-virus by the hon™ble High Court, Ordinance issued on 31.01.1986 having been made applicable retrospectively, prima facie case has sufficiently and satisfactorily been proved against the respondents. 17. So after the Act was declared ultra-virus by the hon™ble High Court, Ordinance issued on 31.01.1986 having been made applicable retrospectively, prima facie case has sufficiently and satisfactorily been proved against the respondents. 17. Article 20 of the Constitution of India deals with such a situation and provides a complete answer which reads as under:- 20(1)----No person shall be convicted of any offence except for the violation of a law in force at the time of commission of the act charged as an offence, nor be subjected to a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of the commission of the offence. (2) No person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once; (3) No person accused of any offence shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.� Sub-clause (1) of Article 20 clearly envisages that the person can be tried and convicted for an offence committed by him when such act has been declared to be an offence by any law in force. It clearly implies that when the act is committed, it must have been prohibited by a valid law in force. By no legislative process, a pre-Constitutional Law which was declared ultravires of the Constitution could be revived and doctrine of eclipse would be made applicable. The respondents cannot be tried for having committed an act which could have been an offence under the Act of 1985 in view of the reasons indicated above. 18. Now the next question is whether a prima facie case is made out against the accused. The respondents cannot be tried for having committed an act which could have been an offence under the Act of 1985 in view of the reasons indicated above. 18. Now the next question is whether a prima facie case is made out against the accused. In exercising powers under section 269 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the settled position of law is that the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under the said section has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out; where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained by him, the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial; but where the Court is satisfied that the material produced before it while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, it will be fully justified to discharge the accused, and in exercising jurisdiction under section 269 Cr.P.C., the Judge cannot act merely as a post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before him. At that stage the Court has not to see whether there is sufficient ground for conviction of the accused or whether the trial is sure to end in his conviction. 19. The Apex Court in case of ˜State of Maharashtra v. Priya Sharan Maharaj™ (1997) 4 SCC 393, while dealing with the question relating to discharge or framing charge against the accused held as under:- At the stage of Ss.227 and 228 the Court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. The Court may, for this limited purpose, sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case. The Court may, for this limited purpose, sift the evidence as it cannot be expected even at that initial stage to accept all that the prosecution states as gospel truth even if it is opposed to common sense or the broad probabilities of the case. Therefore, at the stage of framing of the charge the Court has to consider the material with a view to find out if there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed the offence or that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against him and not for the purpose of arriving at the conclusion that it is not likely to lead to a conviction.� 20. For the aforesaid reasons, I find myself in complete agreement with the view taken by the Trial Court that there is no sufficient ground for trying the accused/respondents in the instant case and, therefore, would be most reluctant to interfere with the finding of the Trial Court. 21. In the result, the revision, in my view, does not possess any merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. Record of the trial court be remitted back forthwith.