( 1 ) RULE in both the Criminal Revision Application. Mr. B. Y. Mnkad waives service of rule.

( 2 ) CONSIDERING the nature of litigation pending and number of accused who are under trial prisoners in the Sessions Case, pending before the learned Sessions Judge, the matter is taken up for final hearing by consent.

( 3 ) THE petitioner is the original accused No. 4 in Criminal Case registered at Khavada Police Station vide C. R. No : 15/98. On completion of investigation, the Police filed Chargesheet against all accused mentioned in the Chargesheet and as the some of the alleged offences are punishable with the extreme penalty, the case against the applicant, along with the other accused, has been committed to the Court of Sessions of District Kutch at Bhuj. Two Sessions Cases are registered as some of the accused are chargesheeted by a supplementary chargesheet and Sessions Cases are registered vide Sessions Case No : 106/98 and 57/99, respectively. The learned Sessions Judge of Kutch-Bhuj, after committal, was intending to frame charge against the accused and the present petitioner had applied vide application Exh. 29, that Court of Sessions should not frame any charge against him under Section 227 and 228 of Crpc and prayed that he should be discharged from the offences, alleged to have been committed by him under Section 227 and 228 of Crpc. The revisioner of Revision Application No : 464 / 99 had also applied along with other accused for discharge vide joint application Exh. 77. The applications preferred under Sections 227 and 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, filed by these accused persons (Exs. 29 and 77), were heard by the learned Sessions Judge of Kutchha-Bhuj and vide order dated 27/07/1999, the learned Judge, dismissed both these applications.

( 4 ) FEELING aggrieved by the order rejecting the application Ex. 29, the original accused No. 4 has filed Revision Application No : 419/99 and original accused No. 7 and 9 and the accused brought on record by a supplementary chargesheet namely Ramesh Dharansinh Solanki, jointly preferred the above Revision Application No : 464/99. The petitioner original accused No. 4 (hereinafter referred to as `accused No. 4 for the sake of convenience) is a accused - Officer serving with the Forest Department as Class-I Officer and was serving at the relevant time when the alleged offence was committed, as Dy. Conservator of Forest in the Eastern Division of District Kutch and the revisioner of Revision Application No : 464/99 are also Forest Officials. The petitioner No. 1 of Criminal Revision Application No : 464/99 is a Forester and rest of the two applicants are Forest Guard. It is not a matter of dispute that all the petitioners were present near the spot of incident at relevant time and date in the capacity of Government Servants and all the four are Civil Servants or say Public Servants within the meaning of Sec. 21 of IPC. They were on the spot of event, on account of their staff, working in the Forest Division of West. On going through the record, it transpires that one Mr. Vakani who is also accused and chargesheeted for the alleged offence, was heading that Division and he was Asstt. Conservator of Forest of Forest Division West of District Kutch, at that relevant time.

( 5 ) I would like to point out the case put forward by the police against all the accused in the chalan filed before the Criminal Court, so that the nature of allegations against the present petitioners and the case of prosecution against the present petitioners can be appreciated in proper perspective.

( 6 ) THE above case of the prosecution in nutshell is narrated for the purpose of appreciating the case of both these Revision Applications, second part is more relevant for the purpose. It can be said that the present applicants have to face the trial, as they had abetted the alleged crime and as they failed in not performing their respective duties, by illegal omission. The petitioners have