Jharkhand High Court
Krishna Modi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 16 August, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 1181 of 2015
Krishna Modi ..... ... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ..... ... Opposite Party
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Praveen Shankar Dayal, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Jitendra Pandey, A.P.P.
------
03/ 16.08.2022 Heard Mr. Praveen Shankar Dayal, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner and Mr. Jitendra Pandey, learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal
proceeding, including the order taking cognizance dated 04.03.2014,
passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Koderma, in Case No. G-
126 of 2008 (T.R. No. 1149 of 2015), pending in the court of learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Koderma.
3. On the basis of the prosecution report of the Forest Guard, the
case has been lodged, stating therein that the forest guards while on
patrolling duty received information that some persons were loading Mica
dust (Dibra) on a truck inside Bandar Chaukawa Forest, whereupon the
forest guards proceeded towards the place of occurrence. The forest
guards noticed that a truck loaded with Mica dust (Dibra) had already left
from the forest, whereupon the truck was chased and stopped at Bariardih
Check Post. The driver of the truck, bearing No. JH-11-B-6105, was
arrested and Dibra loaded on the truck was seized and offence report was
submitted by the forest guard to the forester.
4. Mr. Praveen Shankar Dayal, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner submits that the prosecution report was submitted by the Forest
Officer on 18.06.2008 and the cognizance has been taken on 04.03.2014.
He submits that the case is fully covered under Section 468 of the Cr.P.C.
He further submits that it has been alleged that the land in question was
protected forest area, in the light of Sections 29 and 30 of the Indian
Forest Act. He further submits that the notification is dated 18.12.1953. He
refers to Section 30 of the Indian Forest Act and submits that the force of
that notification is only for 30 years and 30 years have already been
completed in the year 1983 itself.
5. To buttress his arguments, he relied in the case of Wazir
Mohammad & Anr. Versus the State of Bihar (now Jharkhand), reported
in (2013) 2 JLJR 163, wherein this Hon'ble Court in paras-6 and 7 held
as follows:-
"6. After having heard learned counsels for the parties
and upon going through the record, I find that though
the Notification issued in the year 1955 notifying the
forest to be protected forest from where the recovery
was made, has been proved by the prosecution as Ext.5,
but no further notification issued under the Act has
been brought on record, to show that on the date of
alleged seizure from the petitioners, the forest was still
a protected forest. It is apparent that the Notification
which has been proved as Ext.5 was issued in the year
1955 itself lost its force in the year 1985 and
accordingly, on the date of alleged seizure from the
petitioners i.e. on 7.11.1993, there was no notification
in force notifying the forest to be protected forest and in
absence of any such notification, the conviction and
sentence of the petitioners under Section 33 of the
Indian Forest Act cannot be sustained in the eyes of
law.
7. In view of the aforementioned discussions, the
impugned Judgment and Order dated 17th August 1998
passed by Sri P. N. Rai, learned Judicial Magistrate 1st
Class, Daltonganj, in C.F. No. 574 of 1993 | T.R. No.
463 of 1998, as also the Judgment dated 25th
November 1999 passed by learned Sessions Judge,
Palamau at Daltonganj in Cri. Appeal No. 111 of 1998,
are hereby, set aside. Consequently, the petitioners
stand acquitted of the charge. The petitioners are on
bail and they also discharged from the liabilities of
their respective bail bonds."
6. Per contra, Mr. Jitendra Pandey, learned A.P.P. appearing for
the State submits that the learned Court has rightly taken the cognizance
and Section 468 of the Cr.P.C. is not attracted, as the case has been filed
within time. He submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order.
7. In view of such submissions of learned counsel appearing for
the parties, the Court has gone through the materials available on record
and finds that the alleged occurrence is of the year 2008, wherein the
prosecution report was filed by the Forest Guard on 18.06.2008 and the
cognizance was taken on 04.03.2014.
8. The contention of Mr. Dayal, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner that Section 468 Cr.P.C. is attracted does not sound good, in
view of the fact that the court has taken the cognizance on the basis of the
prosecution report dated 18.06.2008 submitted by the forest guard. It has
been held by the Full Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court that if the case is
filed within time and the cognizance has been taken after certain period,
the date of filing of case is important for counting the days under Section
468 Cr.P.C. As such the contention of Mr. Dayal with regard to Section
468 Cr.P.C. is not tenable.
9. On perusal of the offence report, it transpires that on the
strength of notification of the year 1953, the said prosecution report has
been filed. It is an admitted fact that the said notification is of the year
1953 and in view of Section 30 of the Indian Forest Act, the effect of said
notification came to end in the year 1983 itself, whereas the prosecution
has been launched in the year 2008. The case of the petitioner is fully
covered by the judgment of this court in the case of Wazir Mohammad &
Anr. (Supra).
10. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the
order taking cognizance dated 04.03.2014, passed by the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Koderma in Case No. G-126 of 2008 (T.R. No. 1149
of 2015), pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Koderma, is hereby, quashed.
11. This petition is allowed and disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Amitesh/-
