S.I.Jafri - (1.) THIS petition under section 482 CrPC has been preferred by Shahabuddin Qureshi applicant praying for quashing the proceedings pending against him under Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 in the Court of Sessions Judge, Dehradun as Special Case No. 2 of 1983. The aforesaid proceedings arise out of Grime No. 156 of 1972 registered in the year 1970 at Dehradun.
(2.) THE applicant was serving as Conservator of Forest, Tehri Garhwal Circle, Dehradun and he was superannuated from the service in the year 1972. Subsequeat to his retirement, a charge-sheet was filed by CID against him on 11-5-1983 in the Court of Sessions Judge, Dehradun and as a consequence of the filing of the said charge-sheet, the applicant was summoned by the Court. THE applicant put in his appearance before the Court of Sessions Judge Dehradun on 2-6-1983. THEreafter, the applicant, preferred the aforesaid petition under section 482 CrPC in the High Court praying that the aforesaid proceedings pending against him be quashed. This Court admitted the application and stayed further proceedings on 19-4-1985 in Special Case No. 2 of 1983 pending against him in the Court of Sessions Judge, Dehradun and issued notice to the State whereupon Sri Krishna Kumar Tyagi, Inspector of Police (Vigilance) Establishment, Meerut Sector, Meerutt filed rejoinder to the counter affidavit. I have heard Sri G. S. Chaturvedi, learned Counsel for the applicant as well as Sri R. P. Tripathi, learned counsel for the State at a considerable length. Upon a conspectus of the facts and circumstances of the case, the material on record and the submissions propounded before me by the learned counsel for the parties, I feel pursuaded to take the view that the proceedings in the case referred to above, deserve to be quashed in the interest of justice. The case as set up by the prosecution is that in the year 1971, Shahbuddin Qureshi applicant was posted as Conservator of Forest, Tehri Garhwal, Circle Dehradun and while posted as such, he caused hindrances and delay in the execution of the lawful action of Sri Chain Singh Saundal, Deputy Forest Officer in realising the government dues from the forest Contractor Sri Manohar Lal resulting in a loss of Rs. 2,21,936.72 p. to the Forest Department, which could not be realised from the said Contractor till date and also the timber could not be auctioned due to his illegal interference, which might have compensated Rs. 1,06,805.00. Thus Shahabuddin had caused unlawful loss to the Forest Department. It was further alleged that on 14-12-1970, Logging Forest Division, Uttar Kashi had auctioned lots nos. 4, 6 and 7 for the years 1970-71. The applicant did not approve of the aforesaid auction within forty days and also withheld the auction of Lot No. 6 on the basis of a complaint and illegally approved the auction of other lots and consequently a loss to the tune of Rs. 2,5218.54 p. approximately was caused due to re-auction of the said lot with the approval of the applicant and, thus the applicant was charged for over-looking the interest of the Government being a public servant and had caused loss of revenue to the Government rendering himself liable to be prosecuted under section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
(3.) AT the very out-set, it has been submitted on behalf of the applicant that considering the prosecution case in its entirety, there is not a vestige of allegation indicative of illegal gratification having been accepted by the applicant. The only allegation is that of negligence on the part of the applicant causing loss of revenue to the Government. Here it is worth mentioning that the timber which was auctioned by Chain Singh Saundal, District Forest Officer, was not removed from the Forest and it continued to be in possession of the Forest Department. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that it had yielded no monetary advantage to the applicant or to any Contractor in not approving the auction of the timber of Iot no. 6. The learned counsel has invited my attention to section 5 of Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 (herein after referred to as the Act) to show that the allegations contained in the charge-sheet do not attract the provisions of the said Act. The relevant section is reproduced below : "5 Criminal Misconduct-(1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct- (a) if he habitually accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person for himself or for any other person, any gratification (other than legal remuneration) as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in section 161 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), or (b) if he habitually accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain for himself or for any other person, any valuable thing without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate from any person whom he knows to have been, or to be, or to be likely to be concerned in any proceeding or business transacted or about to be transacted by him, or having any connection with the official functions of himself or of any public servant to whom he is subordinate, or from any person whom he knows to be interested in or related io the person so concerned, or (c) if he dishonestly or fraudulently misappropriates or otherwise converts for his own use any property entrusted to him or under his control as a public servant or allows any other person so to do or, (d) if he, by corrupt or illegal means or by otherwise abusing his position as public servant, obtains for himself etc for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage (or), (e) if be or any person on his behalf is in possession or has, at any time during the period of his office, been in possession for which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account, of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income." The learned counsel for the applicant has taken me through the entire clauses (a) to (e) of Section 5 (1) of Prevention of Corruption Act, and submitted that the allegations in the charge-sheet do not attract the provisions of Section 5 (1) of the Act. On the contrary, learned counsel for the State submits that sub-clause (d) of Section 5 (1) takes within its sweep the prosecution allegations against the applicant. I have very carefully scanned through the said clauses (a) to (e) of Section 5 (1) of the Act and I am of the view that there is no whisper therein to hold that the applicant by illegal means or otherwise abusing his position as a public servant, has obtained for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage. Upon consideration of the legal aspect of the matter, I find that the contention of the learned counsel for the State is devoid of any substance, lender the circumstance, I hold that the allegations contained in the charge-sheet (Annexure 1 to the petition) do not constitute any offence punishable under section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.;