Jharkhand High Court
Manoj Kumar Pandey vs The State Of Jharkhand on 3 March, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No. 2197 of 2020
1. Manoj Kumar Pandey
2. Manoj Kumar Chourey ..... ... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ..... ... Opposite Party
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
------
For the Petitioners : Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate
: Ms Khushboo Kataruka, Advocate
: Mr. Nishant Roy, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Manoj Kumar, G.A.-III.
------
06/ 03.03.2022 Heard Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel appearing
for the petitioners and Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned G.A.-III for the State.
2. This petition has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal
proceedings as well the cognizance order dated 16.10.2015, whereby
cognizance under Sections 33 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act has been
taken against the petitioners, in connection with Government Complaint,
being GO Case No. 291 of 2015, pending in the Court of learned Judicial
Magistrate, 1st Class, Seraikella.
3. The prosecution case in brief is that on 14.05.2015, one Sunil
Kumar Das, Forest Guard/Van Rakshi, Chandil Beat, has written a letter
to the Sub Beat Officer /Van Parisar Padadhikari, Chandil Beat, stating
therein that on 14.05.2015 during inspection of Ghodaling PF, he saw that
one Simal Tree was felled in pieces. When he counted the felled pieces, it
was 17 in total and was kept in custody of the Chowkidar of Madhuconn
company. Accordingly, it was requested by the said Forest Guard/Van
Rakshi to register a case against unknown" persons and he shall submit a
report after further inspection. On receipt of the said letter dated
14.05.2015, the Sub Beat Officer /Van ParisarPadadhikari, Chandil Beat
had forwarded the said complaint to Forest Range Officer/Van Khsetra
Padadhikari, Chandil Forest Range vide his letter dated 15.05.2015.
Subsequently the Forest Range Officer/VanKhsetra Padadhikari, Chandil
Forest Range had written a letter dated 20.05.2015 to the Divisional
Forest Officer, Saraikela Forest Division, stating therein that after receipt
of the letter dated 14.05.2015 from the Forest Guard namely Sunil Kumar
Das on 15.05.2015, he had visited the place of occurrence with the said
Forest Guard on 18.05.2015 for inspection of Ghodaling PF wherein one
Simal Tree was found to be felled to pieces.
It is alleged that diameter of the said tree was found to be 12'-
6" which appeared to be similar to the diameter of the felled pieces
lying there. In some distance from the place of occurrence, few
workers were found to be felling the trees from whom they made
enquiry. The workers informed the Forest Guards that they were
hired by Madhuconn company and on the instructions of the said
company's staff namely S.K. Singh and company's manager Rao
Sahib, they are carrying out the work of felling of trees. When
inquired about the Simal Tree lying on the forest ground, the
workers stated that the felling of the said Simal Tree was also done
on the instructions of the said S.K. Singh and Rao Sahib.
It is further alleged that during the process of felling of the
said tree, two officers of NHAI had also visited who were being
called as ChouraySaheb and Pandey Saheb and that they were
giving instructions to Madhuconn Company's S.K. Singh. It is also
alleged that the said officers were saying that felling of Simal Tree
would help in widening and construction of the road and
construction of the bridge. The said workers however denied to give
their statements in writing.
It is further stated in the said report that about 83 trees
situated on the Raiyati Land were numbered and a list was prepared
by Madhuconn Company for the purpose of widening of road and an
approval was sought from the Divisional Forest Officer, Saraikella,
for the felling of trees. The DFO, Saraikella had duly given
permission for felling of the said trees basis which the felling of
trees was being done. It is alleged that the Simal Tree located on the
forest land was numbered separately and the said number was not
included in the list of 83 trees. It is alleged that the staff and
manager of Madhuconn Company and the officers of NHAI have
purposely felled the Simal Tree, which was located on the forest
land which was confiscated and kept under the custody of the guard
of Madhuconn Company. It is further stated in the said report that on
prima facie investigation the above mentioned perons were found
guilty and that the accused persons have felled the tree located on
plot No. 3199, Ghodaling P.F.
In view of the said report dated 20.05.2015, an offence
report of offences under Sections 33, 41, 42 of the Indian Forest Act,
1927 against the accused persons namely (1) Malikarjun Rao (2)
S.K. Singh, (3) Manoj Kumar Pandey, (4) Manoj Chorey was
forwarded to the Court of SDJM, Seraikella.
4. Mr. R.S. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel appearing for the
petitioners at the outset submits that petitioner No. 1 is the Project
Director and presently posted at Dharbhanga (BIhar) and the petitioner
No. 2 is the Manager of the NHAI, now posted at Indore (M.P.). He draws
the attention of this Court to the FIR, wherein it has been disclosed that
sanction for cutting the trees for NH-33 is already there and it has also
been disclosed that both the petitioners were discharging the official duties
with regard to road construction, however at the time of reporting of the
said complaint, they were not present at the spot and for cutting of one
more tree, they are protected under Section 197 Cr.P.C.
5. To buttress his arguments, learned senior counsel has relied in
the case of Indra Devi Versus State of Rajasthan & Anr., reported in
(2021) SCC Online SC 487, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para-
9 held as follows:-
"9. We have given our thought to the submissions of
learned counsel for the parties. Section 197 of the
CrPC seeks to protect an officer from unnecessary
harassment, who is accused of an offence committed
while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his
official duties and, thus, prohibits the court from taking
cognisance of such offence except with the previous
sanction of the competent authority. Public servants
have been treated as a special category in order to
protect them from malicious or vexatious prosecution.
At the same time, the shield cannot protect corrupt
officers and the provisions must be construed in such a
manner as to advance the cause of honesty, justice and
good governance. [See Subramanian Swamy Vs.
Manmohan Singh 4 ]. The alleged indulgence of the
officers in cheating, fabrication of records or
misappropriation cannot be said to be in discharge of
their official duty. However, such sanction is necessary
if the offence alleged against the public servant is
committed by him "while acting or purporting to act in
the discharge of his official duty" and in order to find
out whether the alleged offence is committed "while
acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his
official duty", the yardstick to be followed is to form a
prima facie view whether the act of omission for which
the accused was charged had a reasonable connection
with the discharge of his duties. [See State of
Maharashtra Vs. Dr. Budhikota Subbarao] 5 . The real
question, therefore, is whether the act committed is
directly concerned with the official duty."
6. Per contra, Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned G.A.-III for the State
submits that Section 197 Cr.P.C. will not attract in the case of the
petitioners, as they were not performing their official duty. He relied upon
a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa
Versus Ganesh Chandra Jew, reported in (2004) 8 SCC 40.
7. In view of such submissions of the parties, the Court has gone
through the materials available on record. In the FIR, it has been disclosed
that the sanction of cutting 83 tress are already there and it has been
alleged that only one more tree has been cut. From the FIR, it is crystal
clear that only one more tree has been cut, rather both the petitioners are
discharging their official duties and working under the NHAI and now
they are posted at different places. It is well settled that if a person has
done any wrong, which is not on official duty, Section 197 Cr.P.C. will not
apply. However, in case, it has been done with regard to discharging of
official duty, they have been protected under Section 197 Cr.P.C.
8. The court has also perused the cognizance order dated
16.10.2015, whereby cognizance under Sections 33 and 42 of the Indian
Forest Act has been taken against the petitioners. The word "cognizance"
is not defined in the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the case of
"S.K.Sinha, Chief Enforcement Officer- versus- Videocon International
Ltd. & Others, reported in (2008) 2 SCC 492", the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Para-19 has held as follows:-
"19. The expression 'cognizance' has not been defined
in the Code. But the word (cognizance) is of indefinite
import. It has no esoteric or mystic significance in
criminal law. It merely means 'become aware of' and
when used with reference to a court or a Judge, it
cannot 'to take notice of judicially'. It indicates the
point when a court or a Magistrate takes judicial
notice of an offence with a view to initiating
proceedings in respect of such offence said to have
been committed by someone."
9. It is well settled that it is not necessary to pass a detail order
giving detail reasons while taking cognizance. The order taking
cognizance should only reflect application of judicial mind. If the
Magistrate after going through the complaint petition and the statements
of the other witnesses or after going through the FIR, case diary and
charge sheet or the complaint, as the case may be comes to a conclusion
that the offence is made out, he is bound to take cognizance of the offence.
The order should reflect application of judicial mind to the extent that
from the FIR, the case diary or complaint, offence is made out. In the case
in hand, the learned Magistrate has not disclosed what are the prima facie
materials against the petitioners, who happens to be the Government
officials and the cognizance has been taken.
10. In the light of the above discussions and analysis, the order
dated 16.10.2015, whereby cognizance under Sections 33 and 42 of the
Indian Forest Act has been taken against the petitioners, in connection
with Government Complaint being GO Case No. 291 of 2015, pending in
the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Seraikella, is hereby,
quashed.
11. The matter is remitted back to the court concerned to proceed
afresh in the light of the discussions made hereinabove.
12. This petition, is accordingly, disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Amitesh/-
