IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Criminal Revision No. 212 of 2011. Order reserved on: 2.11.2011. Date of decision: 4.11.2011. Rajinder Parshad ….. Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P. …. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mrs. Ranjana Parmar, Advocate. For the Respondent : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. Advocate General. Kuldip Singh, Judge.. This revision has been directed against the order dated 25.8.2011 passed by learned Special Judge, Chamba in Corruption Case No. 12/2010 in FIR No. 7/2003 registered at Police Station SV and ACB, Chamba, whereby the learned Special Judge framed charges against the petitioner for offences punishable, under Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, 1988 Act ) and Section 14 of Himachal Pradesh Prevention of Specific Corrupt Practices Act, 1983 (for short, 1983 Act). 2. A report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was filed under Sections 26, 32, 33 of Indian Forest Act, Section 13(2) of 1988 Act and section 14 of 1983 Act. The allegations against the petitioner are that he had been posted as Block Officer, Block Sai Koti since Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… 2002. In the year 2002-03 Sham Lal, Astu, Baldev and Nand Lal were sanctioned three Deodar trees category II-B in D.P.F Kaila and one tree of Deodar TD-1-A to Sham Lal by the Divisional Forest Officer, Salooni. On that basis Rajinder Prasad issued permits in favour of allottees. Rajinder Prasad intentionally marked three Deodar trees I-A in Reserved Forest, Kaila in stead of D.P.F., Kaila and gave illegal benefit to TD holders and caused loss to the government to the tune of Rs.92,786/-. It has been alleged that in this way, Rajinder Prasad has committed an offence punishable, under Section 13(2) of 1988 Act. 3. It has also been alleged that in June 2003, Rajinder Parshad from his hammer gave Khudan mark of four Deodar trees, which were sanctioned in favour of Sham Lal, Astu, Baldev and Nand Lal. Rajinder Parshad was not authorized and competent for permitting the felling of trees in Reserved Forest. He has thus committed an offence, punishable under section 14 of 1983 Act. 4. The learned Special Judge, Chamba on 25.8.2011 framed charges against Rajinder Parshad and Chuni Lal for offences, punishable under section 13(2) of 1988 Act and section 14 of 1983 Act. The order dated 25.8.2011 has been assailed by Rajinder Parshad in the revision. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. A copy of report under section 173 Cr.P.C. has been placed on record by the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the final report, it has been stated that three beneficiaries are illiterate and during investigation no conspiracy of …3… such beneficiaries has been found with the B.O. that they played some role for marking of trees by B.O. in reserved forest. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the investigating agency itself has projected the case that three beneficiaries have played no role in marking the trees, therefore, ex- facie no offence, under Section 13(2) of 1988 Act and section 14 of 1983 Act, has been committed by the petitioner. The learned Special Judge has erred in framing the charges against the petitioner for offences, under section 13(2) of 1988 Act and section 14 of 1983 Act. 6. The perusal of revision petition indicates that petitioner has not specifically challenged the framing of charge, under Section 14 of 1983 Act. The petitioner, has, however, challenged the impugned order regarding framing of charge, under section 13(2) of 1988 Act. Section 13 of 1988 Act is as follows:- “13. Criminal misconduct by a public servant.-(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 7; 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 to the person so concerned; or …4… (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, - (i) By corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or Pecuniary advantage; or (ii) By abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or (iii) While holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest; or (e) If he 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. Explanation. -For the purposes of this section “known sources of income” means income received from any lawful source and such receipt has been intimated in accordance with the provisions of any law, rules or orders for the time being applicable to a public servant. (2) Any public servant who commits criminal misconduct shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than one year but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.” 7. The prosecution case against the petitioner is that he gave illegal benefit to T.D. holders and cause loss to the government to the extent of Rs.92,786/-. The petitioner had no authority, competency to mark the trees in the reserved forest. The observation of Dy. S.P. in Section 173 Cr.P.C. report that three allottees are illiterate, and, therefore, their conspiracy has not been found with the B.O., cannot be read out of context. The investigating officer or the officer who has prepared the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. has used the aforesaid expression in his own wisdom. The relevant …5… material for framing of charge, are the statements under Sections 161 Cr.P.C. and the documents collected during investigation. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not pointed out any statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. or document collected during investigation and annexed with 173 Cr.P.C. report so as to bring home the point that there is no legal material on record to frame the charge against the petitioner for offence punishable, under section 13 of 1988 Act. The section 13 of 1988 Act is wide enough to frame the charge against the petitioner on the basis of material on record. Moreover the aforesaid observation of Dy. S.P. is regarding three allottees and not for all four allottees. 8. It is not necessary that in 173 Cr.P.C. report including Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements and documents collected during investigation, there should be reproduction of statutory provision for framing the charge. The legal requirement will be met for framing the charge, if from the material collected it emerges that in case such material remains un-rebutted or accepted as it is then there is possibility of conviction of accused for the offence alleged. It will not be in the interest of the petitioner or the prosecution to comment further on the material which has come on record because it may affect the ultimate decision which is to be given by trial court after trial. At this stage, it is sufficient to observe that there is material on record for framing of charges, under section 13(2) of 1988 Act and section 14 of 1983 Act. 9. I may, however, point out that learned Special Judge in the impugned order has stated Himachal Pradesh Prevention of …6… Specific Corrupt Practices Act, 1993 instead of HImachal Pradesh Prevention of Specific Corrupt Practices Act, 1983. It is typing mistake and in the impugned order it shall be read as Himachal Pradesh Prevention of Specific Corrupt Practices Act, 1983. 10. In view of above, there is no merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. November 4, 2011. ( Kuldip Singh ) (Hem) Judge.