This is a petition under section 561-A, Cr. P. C. By Gul Taj and Muhammad Ehsan, petitioners Nos. 1 and 2, for the quashment of proceedings under section 379/411, P. P. C. Read with section 41 of the Forest Act, 1927, pending against them in the Court of Mr. Ghazanfar Zia, Resident Magistrate, Islamabad.
2. The brief facts of the case are that transit permit No. 18 dated 18:10-1978 in favour of Gul Taj, petitioner No. 1, and transit permit No. 19 dated 18-101978 in favour of Muhammad Ehsan petitioner No. 2; were issued by the Range Forest Officer, Municipal Committee, for the carriage of certain timber sold by the Municipal Committee. Murree, from Murree to Rawalpindi. Challan No. 13/ 1296 dated 21-10-1978 was issued in the name of Muhammad Ehsan, petitioner No. 2, for the carriage of the said timber in truck No. RID/9629. The Range Forest Officer also hammer marked the timber for the purposes of identification. When the said timber belonging to the two petitioners was being carried in the truck above--mentioned, the same was inspected by the Forest Guards at Bhara Kahu on 21-10-1978, who held that the challans and permits in favour of the petitioners did not cover the wood being carried in the truck. Accordingly, the Forest Guards lodged F. I. R. No. 67 at Police Station Bhara Kahu, against the petitioners under section 379/411, P. P. C. Thereafter, the petitioners approached the higher officers of the Forest Department on the plea that the case against the petitioners was false and the result of the vindictiveness of the Forest Guards on duty.
The whole case was considered by the concerned officers of the Forest Department, who found that only five cubic feet of wood was in excess of that covered by the permits for the truck in question. Accordingly, it was decided that the case be compromised between the Department and the petitioners. The petitioners were imposed a penalty of Rs. 510 in this respect, which was duly paid by them, vide receipt No. 144/44 on 3-12-1978, Annexures 'F' and 'F/1' filed by the petitioners with the petition. In spite of the compromise, the Police having filed the challans against the petitioners in the Court of the Resident Magistrate, Islamabad, the petitioners moved a petition for quashment of the said case, which is now before me for disposal.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the offence with regard to the excess five cubic feet of wood found in their truck No. RID/ 9629, was the subject-matter of a compromise between the Forest Department and the petitioners and that the petitioners were imposed a penalty of Rs. 510 in that respect by the Forest Department, which they had duly paid on 3-12-1978.
In these circumstances, it was submitted that the present criminal proceedings against the petitioners were uncalled for and malicious, if not an attempt to punish the petitioners for the same offence twice. In these circumstances it was prayed that the case pending against the petitioners be quashed.
4. The learned counsel for the State, who has appeared in answer to the notice, admits that only five cubic feet of wood was found in excess of what was covered by the two permits in Truck No. RID/9629, when the same was inspected by the Forest Guards on 21-10-1978, in respect of which offence, according to the procedure of the Forest Department, the matter had been compromised on the petitioners' undertaking and accepting to pay the penalty imposed by the department in respect of the said excess wood found with them. The learned counsel for the State did not dispute the fact that the case was compromised between the Forest Department and the petitioners and that the petitioners had paid Rs. 510 in respect of the excess wood found in the disputed truck. The learned counsel, therefore, did not seriously oppose the petition.
5. It is not disputed between the patties that only a small amount of wood was found to be in excess in the truck when the same was checked by the Forest Guards at Forest Check Post Bhara Kahu on 21-10-1978 and in respect of which, according to the rules of the Forest Department, the Forest Department agreed to compound the case subject to the petitioners' accepting `and admitting their liability and paying the penalty imposed on them which was done. There can be no doubt, therefore, that the offence, if any, relating to theft regarding this petty quantity of wood was sorted out and settled between the Forest Department and the petitioners according to the rules and regulations of the Forest Department. The further prosecution of the petitioners in respect of the same offence by the Police under section 379 411 P. P. C. Is not only unreasonable and male fide, butt an attempt to punish the petitioners twice for the same offence, for which they have already paid a penalty to Government. In these circumstances, the prosecution of the petitioners is an abuse of the process of the Court and an attempt to punish the petitioners twice for the same offence.
6. For the foregoing reasons, this petition is accepted and the proceedings against the petitioners under section 379/411, P. P. C., pending in the Court of Mr. Ghazanfar Zia, Resident Magistrate, Islamabad, are hereby quashed.