Dilip Kumar Pandey @ Dilip Pandey vs State of Jharkhand

R.R. Prasad, J.—Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State. This application has been filed u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding of C.F. Case No. 29 of 2000 including the order dated 19.3.2001 whereby and whereunder the then Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau at Daltonganj took cognizance of the offence punishable u/s 33(1) of the Indian Forest Act.

It is the case of the prosecution that in course of patrolling, the forest guard found some persons picking up stones lying in the forest area and collecting it at the instance of the petitioner, a contractor, for its use in repairing of the road passing through the forest. At the same time, Moram was being taken out from the forest area for repairing the road. Subsequently, upon submission of the prosecution report, cognizance of the offence punishable u/s 33(1) of the Indian Forest Act was taken which is under challenge.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, a contractor had been entrusted work by the Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department to repair Neura-Ramkunda road, passing through the said Kuti protected forest (plot no. 3) and as such, no offence is made out as the petitioner has been doing public work under the order of the Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department and in that event, even if some damages were caused to the forest land, it will not amount to an offence under the Indian Forest in view of the decision rendered in a case of Arun Kumar Agarwal Vs. State of Jharkhand and Others, .

It was further submitted that the Forest Department has claimed the land (plot no. 3) as that of the protected forest by virtue of notification no. C/ PF/17042/55-2688 dated 2.9.1955 but it lost its force after expiry of 30 years and thereafter no further notification had been issued and as such, the land cannot be taken as that of the forest land.

Learned counsel in support of his submission has referred to a decision rendered in a case of Jagdish Mehta Vs. State of Jharkhand and Others, .

Thus, it was submitted that the entire criminal proceeding is fit to be quashed.

No counter affidavit has been filed in this case but from perusal of the offence and prosecution report, it does appear that the petitioner, a contractor was entrusted to repair Neura-Ramkunda road and while repairing work was being done, a case was lodged though in course of repairing the road, damage was done to the forest land as well as to the trees on the forest land. Still petitioner who was doing public work can not in view of the decision rendered in a case of Arun Kumar Agrawal vs. State of Jharkhand be said to have committed any offence particularly when the land over which the said road was existing had already been acquired by the Government.

Further it does appear from the prosecution report that the prosecution has been laying claim the land as that of the forest land by virtue of notification issued in the year 1955 but in view of the provision as contained in Section 30 of the Forest Act, it lost Its force after expiry of 30 years. In this case one needs to take provision as contained in Section 30(b) of the Indian Forest Act which reads as under:

Power to issue notification reserving trees, etc The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette,-

(a)...

(b) 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 term 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; or

(c)....

It is evidently clear from perusal of the aforesaid provision that any declaration made by the Government for the land to be a protected forest shall be expired after 30 years from the date of issuance of the notification.

Similar question fell for consideration before the Patna High Court in a case of Janu Khan and Others Vs. The State, wherein His Lordship observed as follows

Even if I take into consideration the notification referred to above, which is dated the 29th December, 1952, there had to be another notification u/s 30 of the Indian Forest Act, protected forest to be reserved from a date fixed in that notification.

Similar view was taken by this Court in a case of Jagdish Mehta vs. State of Jharkhand and others (supra).

Under this situation, one is constrained to hold that the land through which Neura-Ramkunda road was passing through Kuti protected forest can never be taken to be forest land in absence of issuance of any notification in terms of Section 30(b) of the Indian Forest Act after expiry of 30 years of notification issued in the year 1955 and also on account of the fact that the land had already been acquired by the Government.

Under this situation, no offence can be said to have been committed by the petitioner, even if the petitioner indulged himself in repairing the road in question.

Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding of C.F. Case No. 29 of 2000 including the order taking cognizance of the offence dated 19.3.2001 is hereby quashed. In the result, this application is allowed.