Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Jharkhand High Court

Jagdish Prasad Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand on 8 August, 2023

Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary

Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary

                                          1                         Cr.M.P. No.2905 of 2022




                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                            Cr.M.P. No. 2905 of 2022


                 Jagdish Prasad Yadav, aged about 59 years, son of Buddi Yadav,
                 resident of Holding No. 21, Hill Vihar Colony, Dimna Chowk,
                 Mango, P.O.- M.G.M. College, P.S.- Mango, Dist. East Singbhum
                                                        ....                   Petitioner


                                        Versus

                 1. The State of Jharkhand
                 2. Forest Range Officer, Mango, Dalma Wildlife Sanctuary,
                    Jamshedpur, P.O. & P.S. Mango, Dist. East Singhbhum.
                                                   ....                 Opp. Parties



                                        PRESENT

                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
                                      .....

For the Petitioners : Mr. Lalit Yadav, Advocate For the State : Mr. P.D. Agrawal, Spl. P.P. .....

By the Court:-

1. Heard the parties.

2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No. 784 of 2017 and also the order taking cognizance dated 26.05.2017 whereby and where under, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur has taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Section 33 of Indian Forest Act and under Section 51 (1) of Forest Conservation Act in connection with Complaint Case No. 784 of 2017.

3. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner being the Chairman of Notified Area Council, Mango has engaged the co-accused- Praveen Kumar Singh for construction of public toilet on forest land.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a public servant and has done the work in discharge of his duty as such public servant. Drawing attention of this Court to Section 33 of Indian Forest Act, 1927 which reads as under:-

33. Penalties for acts in contravention of notification under section 30 or of rules under section 32.--

(1) Any person who commits any of the following offences, namely:--

(a) fells, girdles, lops, taps or burns any tree reserved under section 30, or strips off the bark or leaves from, or otherwise damages, any such tree;

(b) contrary to any prohibition under section 30, quarries any stone, or burns any lime or charcoal, or collects, subjects to any manufacturing process, or removes any forest-produce;

(c) contrary to any prohibition under section 30, breaks up or clears for cultivation or any other purpose any land in any protected forest;

(d) sets fire to such forest, or kindles a fire without taking all reasonable precautions to prevent its spreading to any tree reserved under section 30, whether standing, fallen or felled, or to any closed portion of such forest;

(e) leaves burning any fire kindled by him in the vicinity of any such tree or closed portion;

(f) fells any tree or drags any timber so as to damage any tree reserved as aforesaid;

(g) permits cattle to damage any such tree;

(h) infringes any rule made under section 32; shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.

(2) Whenever fire is caused wilfully or by gross negligence in a protected forest, the State Government may, notwithstanding that any penalty has been inflicted under this section, direct that in such forest or any portion thereof the exercise of any right of pasture or to forest-produce shall be suspended for such period as it thinks fit.

It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no allegation against the petitioner of damaging any tree, quarry any stone, or burning any lime or charcoal nor there is any allegation of breaking up or clearing for cultivation or any other purpose any land in any protected forest nor there is any allegation against the petitioner of setting fire to such forest, or kindling a fire without taking all reasonable precautions to prevent its spreading to any tree nor there is any allegation of infringing any rule made under section 32 of the Act. Hence, it is submitted that no offence punishable under Section 33 of Indian Forest Act, 1927 is made out.

5. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in Forest Conservation Act, 1980 only Sections 1 to 5 are there and there is no Section 51 (1) in Forest Conservation Act. Hence, the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur has committed perversity by taking cognizance for the offence which does not exist in the statute. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even if the entire allegation made in the complaint is treated to be true in its entirety, still, no offence punishable under Section 33 of Indian Forest Act, 1927 is made out against the petitioner. Hence, it is submitted that the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No. 784 of 2017 and also the order taking cognizance dated 26.05.2017 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur be quashed and set aside.

6. Learned Special Public Prosecutor on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No. 784 of 2017 and also the order taking cognizance dated 26.05.2017 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur but fairly submits that there is no Section 51 (1) in Forest Conservation Act,1980 and also there is no specific allegation against the petitioner of having committed any offence under Section 33 of Indian Forest Act. It is then submitted by learned Addl. P.P. that since the petitioner was instrumental in encroaching upon the wild life sanctuary hence, he is liable to be prosecuted for the same. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed.

7. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, this Court has no hesitation in holding that there is no allegation against the petitioner of having committed any of the offence envisaged under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act and as Forest Conservation Act, 1980 contains Section 1 to 5 only so, obviously Section 51 (1) does not exist under the Forest Conservation Act. Even assuming for the sake of argument that the entire allegation made in the complaint is true in its entirety still, no offence for which the cognizance has been taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur is made out against the petitioner.

8. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Complaint Case No. 784 of 2017 and also the order taking 5 Cr.M.P. No.2905 of 2022 cognizance dated 26.05.2017 passed by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jamshedpur is quashed and set aside qua the petitioner only.

9. In the result, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed.

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 8th August, 2023 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/-