Jharkhand High Court
Jagdish Mehta vs State Of Jharkhand And Ors. on 29 January, 2003
Equivalent citations: [2003(2)JCR525(JHR)]
Author: Lakshman Uraon
Bench: Lakshman Uraon
ORDER Lakshman Uraon, J.
1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order taking cognizance dated 1.4.2002 passed by the learned CJM Koderma in G. Case No. 185/2000, whereby and whereunder, cognizance of the offence has been taken under Sections 33, 41 & 42 of the Indian Forest Act.
3. In this criminal miscellaneous petition notices were issued upon OP Nos. 2 & 3, who were served notices personally but they did not appear. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has got no instruction in this regard.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the alleged occurrence took place on 23.12.2000. The allegation against this petitioner is that he had loaded over the truck, bearing Registration No. D15-7576 about 300 Sq. Ft. of stone valued at Rs. 600/- for which fine was assessed to Rs. 3,000/-.
5. In this present case after submission of the prosecution report the learned Court below has taken cognizance. The learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the order taking cognizance against this petitioner on the ground that in this present case the forest from which stones were extracted, was declared protected forest duly notified under Section 29 of the Indian Forest Act and a due notification must have been issued under the provision of Section 30 of the Indian Forest Act.
6. Section 30, Sub-section (b) provides that "declare that any portion of such forest specified in the notification shall be closed for such term, not exceeding thirty years, as the State Government thinks fit, and that the rights of private persons, if any, over such portion shall be suspended during such terms provided that the remainder of such forest be sufficient, and in a locality reasonably convenient, for the due exercise of the rights suspended in the portion so closed.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Forester OP No. 2, addressed to the DFO, Koderma in the prosecution report mentioning in para 2 that he inspected the PO on 24.12. 2000 and in course of enquiry he found that the area was declared protected forest area in Plot No, 1978, PS No. 55 Notification No. CPR 10181/53-47-37R dated 8.12.53.
8. It was submitted that the said notification as per the jurisdiction under law as mentioned in Section 30, Clause (b) of the Indian Forest Act, has not been declared any area to be protected forest. In view of this fact the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a case reported in AIR 1960 Pat 213 in which His Lordship has observed that : "Even if I take into consideration the Notification referred to above, which is dated the 29th December, 1952, there had to be another notification under Section 30 of the Indian Forest Act, protected forest to be reserved from a date fixed in that notification, The Additional Standing Counsel, who has appeared on behalf of the State, has admitted that he has not been able to find out on the record of this case any such notification under Section 30. That being so, the conviction of the petitioners under Section 33 must be held to be bad. That conviction has, therefore, to be set aside.
9. In this case the notification was issued in the year 1953 and was not renewed which expired after thirty years.
10. In view of this fact, the prosecution in this present case suffers from legal infirmity.
11. This criminal miscellaneous petition is accordingly, allowed and the impugned order taking cognizance by the learned Court below in Government Case No. 185/2000 dated 1.4.2002 is hereby set aside.