N.K. Birla vs State of Jharkhand and Another

Amareshwar Sahay, J.—Heard Mr. Bajaj, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Mishra, learned Government Pleader No. II for the respondents.

With the consent of the parties, this application is being finally heard and disposed of at this stage itself.

In the present application the petitioner has challenged the order dated 12.11.2001 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lohardaga taking cognizance of the offence under Sections 26 and 63 of the Indian Forest Act and Sections 2 and 3-A of the Forest Conservation Act against the petitioner and others and has prayed for quashing of the entire criminal prosecution against him mainly on the ground that the cognizance taken against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences was barred by law of limitation as envisaged u/s 468(2) of the Cr PC.

It appears that on 7.11.1997, the Range Officer of the Forest, Lohardaga reported to the Divisional Forest Officer, West Division, Ranchi that on 6.11.1997 while he was on patrolling duty inside Pakhar Reserve Forest, he saw working of road construction was being done and found trace mark of tyre of trucks. He also found that mining operation of M/s. HINDALCO was going on there, which was being done by the contractor namely, Yash Construction. It is said that the petitioner was the General Manager (Administration and Finance) of M/s. HINDALCO at the relevant time.

It has been submitted by Mr. Bajaj, that maximum punishment provided u/s 26 of the Indian Forest Act is six months-imprisonment whereas the maximum sentence provided for commission of the offence u/s 63 of the Indian Forest Act is two years only. Similarly, Section 3-A of the Forest Conservation Act is punishable for an imprisonment of maximum period of 15 days only. He further submitted that according to Section 468, Cr PC the period of limitation for taking cognizance is six months, if the offence is punishable with fine only and one year, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year and three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years. He pointed out that in the present case though the offence is said to have been committed on 6.11.1997 but the cognizance of the alleged offence was taken on 12.11.2001, i.e. more than after three years and, therefore, the same was absolutely against Section 468(2) of the Cr PC and, as such, is liable to be quashed.

He further submitted that exactly on the same ground this Court has already quashed the order taking cognizance as well as the entire criminal prosecution against the petitioner, which has been reported in Nawal Kishore Birla and Another Vs. State of Jharkhand and Another, .

Mr. Mishra, the learned Government Pleader No. II, fairly conceded that apparently the order taking cognizance of the case was barred by law of limitation prescribed u/s 468(2), Cr PC and this case is fully covered by the aforesaid decision, cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and reported in 2006 (2) JCR 413 (supra).

In that view of the matter, I hold that the order dated 12.11.2001, taking cognizance was barred by law of limitation as prescribed u/s 468(2) of the Cr PC and, as such, the Court below had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of after expiry of the period of limitation prescribed under the aforesaid provisions.

Accordingly, this application is allowed, the aforesaid order dated 12.11.2001, taking cognizance is hereby quashed. Consequently, the entire criminal prosecution against the petitioner being Forest Case No. 42/2001 pending in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lohardaga is hereby quashed.