Jharkhand High Court
Smt.Savitri Devi @ Savitri Evi & Anr. vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors. on 16 July, 2012
Author: R.R. Prasad
Bench: R.R. Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. M.P. No.218 of 2008
1. Smt. Savitri Devi @ Savitri Devi
2. Shankar Prasad Singh ... ... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ... ... Opp. Parties
-----
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.R. PRASAD
-----
For the Petitioners : Mr. Binod Kumar, Advocate
For the State : APP
-----
03/16.07.2012. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the State.
This application has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding of Forest Case No.70 of 2004 (T.R. No.458 of 2007) including the order dated 23.04.2004 whereby and whereunder the then Chief Judicial Magistrate, Giridih, took cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 33(C) and 63 of the Indian Forest Act and also under Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act against these two petitioners as well as other accused persons.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that even accepting the entire allegations, which have made in the offence/prosecution report, to be true, the petitioners cannot be said to have contravened the provision as contained in Section 33(C) of the Indian Forest Act or under Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act and as such, the instant case is fit to be quashed so far these petitioners are concerned.
Mr. Binod Kumar, learned counsel, in this respect further submits that the petitioner no.1 has only been alleged to have purchased the land which is the part of the forest land and got it demarcated whereas petitioner No.2, who happens to be husband of the petitioner No.1, has never been alleged to have done anything. Even the allegations which are there against the petitioner no.1 is not there against the petitioner no.2. Moreover, it is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner no.1 had never used the land for non forest purpose and when this has been admitted by the prosecution that the forest land had never been used by the petitioners for non forest purpose , the petitioners cannot be said to have committed any offence either under Section 33(C) of the Indian Forest Act or under Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act.
Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the record, I do find substance in the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners.
From the perusal of the record, it does appear that the petitioner no.1, who has been impleaded as accused no.3, has been alleged to have purchased certain piece of land, which was the part of the forest land and she got that land demarcated. These acts never constitute any offence either under Section 33(C) of the Indian Forest Act or under Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act.
Furthermore, it gets transpired from the prosecution report itself, that the petitioner no.1 had never used the land for non-forest purpose.
In such situation, no offence is made out either under Section 33(C) of the Indian Forest Act or under Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act.
Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding of Forest Case No.70 of 2004 (T.R. No.458 of 2007) including the order dated 23.04.2004 under which cognizance of the offence has been taken against the petitioners is, hereby, quashed.
In the result, this application is allowed.
(R.R. Prasad, J.) Ravi/