Mohan Tiwari and Others vs State of Arunachal Pradesh

Manisana, J.—These three petitions, namely Criminal Revision Nos. 84 of 1987, 85 of 1987 and 113 of 1987, can be disposed of by a common judgment as they are from a common judgment of the Deputy Commissioner Bomdila passed in Criminal Revisions Nos. 1 and 2 of 1986. Sarvashri Mohan Tiwari, C. Lama, K. Hagum, N. Gohain, A. Bhattacharjee and T. Sethen are the petitioners in Criminal Revision No. 84 of 1987, Shri Mohan Tiwari is the petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 85 of 1987 and Shri D.L. Nandi is the petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 113 of 1987. The petitioners have prayed for quashing of the charges framed against them Under Sections 409 and 418, IPC.

The case of the prosecution, in brief, is thus On the basis of a preliminary report submitted by Mobile Squad Arunachal Pradesh Forest Department relating to loss of Government revenue to the extent of Rs. 25,00,000/- due to illegal extraction of timber during the period of 1981 to 1984, the police investigated the crime and submitted charge-sheet against the accused-petitioners and R. C. Das (since deceased) Under Sections 409 and 418, Indian Penal Code. In the forest in question, the timber operation was carried out on the following manner. The registered contractor applied for cutting down trees growing in the forest. Under the order issued by the Divisional Forest Officer (DFO), the Range Officer marked the trees, which were to be cut down, and collected advance royalty. Thereafter, the Passing Officer deputed by the Range Officer physically inspected the logs after the trees had fallen and logs were measured and measurement was entered in the "Log Measurement Book". On the basis of entry in "Log Measurement Book" final bill was prepared and advance royalty was adjusted. The Passing Officer puts Hammer marks on the logs. If the timber was sawn, the end produce or product was estimated at 65% in the case of manually sawn and 60% in case of sawing by mechanical process. There are two other registers, namely "Timber Marking Register" and "Sawn Timber Measurement Book". Sale hammer marks also put on the sawm timbers. In the present case the quantity of the sawn timber for which the transit passes has been issued was more than the quantity entered in the register of Sawn Timber Measurement Book. The quantity of the timber measured before sawing and entering in Measurement Book should be less than the quantity of the logs by 25% or 30%, as the case may be. Therefore, there was unauthorised or illegal extraction of timber in connivance with the officials concerned. The trial Court framed charge u/s 409, IPC. On revision the learned Deputy Commissioner ordered that charge u/s 418, IPC was also to be added. Hence this petition.

The above facts, prima facie, indicate that the petitioners have dishonestly violated the legal duties in discharge of the trust. Therefore, the charge u/s 409, IPC, cannot be quashed. As regards the charge u/s 418, IPC, the same relates to cheating. The facts stated above does not disclose facts constituting cheating and, therefore, the charge u/s 418, IPC, is to be quashed.

As regards the sanction in respect of Section 409, IPC, the Supreme Court has, in Amrik Singh Vs. The State of Pepsu, held that if the acts complained of are so integrally connected with the duties attaching to the office as to be inseparable from them, then sanction u/s 197(1) would be necessary, but if there was no necessary connection between the acts complained of and the performance of those duties, then no sanction would be required. The result then is that, whether sanction is necessary to prosecute a public servant on a charge of criminal breach of trust, will depend on whether the acts complained of hinge on his duties as a public servant.

From the facts stated above, it appears that the accusations made against the accused are so integrally connected with the duties attaching to the office and is inseparable from them. Therefore, in the present case sanction will be required u/s 197(1), Cr. P.C. if the accused are not removable from their office save by or with the sanction of the Government.

u/s 197(1) for the purpose of sanction, the public servant should be removable from the office by the Union Government or a State Government, not by any lesser authority. Thus, if an Inspector of Police is removable by the Inspector General of Police, no sanction is necessary, (see Nagraj Vs. State of Mysore, .

In the cases on hand, sanctions have been accorded by the Chief Conservator of Forests Arunachal Pradesh. Material portion of the sanction in one of the cases is in the following terms : "Sanction is hereby accorded for the prosecution of the following officials in connection with Bomdila Police Station Case No. 12/85". The name of the officers are described therein. All the sanctions in other cases are reproduction of the same words quoted above except case No. and name of the officers. The sanctions do not show that the sanctioning authority has applied his mind on the facts of the case. Therefore, the sanctions are not valid, even if the Chief Conservator of Forests is the sanctioning authority. As already stated, the sanction is required if an accused is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Government, i.e., if the accused is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Government no sanction is required. But there is no material before me to decide whether the petitioners are, or any of them is, not removable save by or with the sanction of the Government.

For the reasons stated above, the charge so far as it concerns u/s 418, IPC, is set aside, and with regard to sanction, the trial Court is directed to examine as to whether the petitioners are, or any of them is, not removable from their/his office save by or with the sanction of the Government. If the petitioners are, or any of them is, not removable from the office save by or with the sanction of the Government, sanction will be required; otherwise sanction is not required.

With the aforesaid observations and direction the petition is partly allowed and disposed of.