A court has the duty to apply its judicial mind to the facts of a case and the essential ingredients of the offences alleged before issuing process. Public servants vested with the power to initiate prosecution against any person have a solemn duty to exercise it judiciously only in cases where the facts and circumstances of the case so warrant.

1. The petitioner in this case is aggrieved by issue of process by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karimganj on the basis of an offence report submitted by the Divisional Forest Officer, Karimganj Division, Karimganj and has filed this petition for quashing of the same on the ground that the allegations made in the offence report do not disclose the ingredients of offences alleged.

2. The petitioner is a partner of a firm M/s. Ameria and Co. (Saw Mill) situated at Fakirbazar, Karimganj. In course of its business, the said Firm procures timber for its saw mill by purchasing logs from the individual contractors as well as the Forest Department and also by taking lease of timber mahals. On 11-6-87, the Divisional Forest Officer, along with a number of other officers and a Magistrate visited the mill premises of the petitioner and noticed some discrepancies in the hammer marks on the timber logs covered by 3 transit passes. The logs were seized. Thereafter, a complaint was filed against the petitioner and another charging them with having committed offences under Ss.24, 25, 40 and 41 of the Assam Forest Regulation, 1891 (hereinafter "the Regulation") and Ss.379, 411, 481, 482, 483, 484 and 489 of the Penal Code. The material facts leading to the proceedings as stated in the complaint and the allegations on the basis of which the offence report was filed, briefly stated, are as follows. On 31-3-87, the petitioner brought some log timbers at the mill-yard of the saw mill of his firm which were covered by transit pass Nos. 90/3052, 91/3052 dated 31-3-87 and 92/3052 dt. 31-3-87 issued by the Range Forest Officer, On receipt of information about the arrival of the aforesaid logs the FRI attached to Forest Protection Squad visited the mill premises and made physical verification of the said log with the corresponding transit passes. On such verification though some doubts arose as to the genuineness and legality of the timbers on their physical appearance, he could not arrive at any conclusion and accordingly he did not conduct seizure of the said logs. He, however, branded the logs with his seizure hammer number in token of physical verification and as a mark of identification. Nothing thereafter happened till 11-5-87 when the Divisional Forest Officer and the said FRI made joint physical verification of the said timbers. During the joint physical verification, it was found that the said logs were girdled and had been dressed. The officers conducting the verification felt that "the timbers did not look so old as mentioned in the transit passes". For that it was observed that the timbers were "on suspicion to be manipulated". It was suggested that the Range Forest Officer should inspect the same personally. No finding was arrived at by the officers who conducted the joint physical verification of the said timbers. As the Forest Range Officer, i/c, Forest Protection squad found the case complicated, he referred the matter to the Divisional Forest Officer, Karimganj Division, who arranged for deputation of a Magistrate to conduct the formal seizure of the related timbers in presence of the T.P. Issuing Officer T.P. Holder and other officers of the Department. Accordingly, on 11-6-87, the said timbers were seized by the Divisional Forest Officer, Thereafter, the present offence report was filed. The allegations in brief, were that some particular hammer impression mark could not be found on the logs; on physical appearance of the related logs the same did not appear to be as old to admit them as operative timber on 1981-82; the logs were bearing distinct sign of girdling and dressing; that no remark to the effect of dressing was present on the transit passes. On the basis of these allegations, offence report was filed charging the petitioner and another with having committed offences under Ss.24, 25, 40 and 41 of the Assam Forest Regulation, 1891 and under S.397, 411, 481, 482, 483, 484 and 489 of the Penal Code. The Chief Judicial