Budhpal Singh Jadon vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 8833 MP

                                                               1
                             IN     THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                    AT GWALIOR
                                                      BEFORE
                                   HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL
                                                   ON THE 15 th OF JUNE, 2023
                                             CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1735 of 2022

                            BETWEEN:-
                            BUDHPAL SINGH JADON S/O MAHARAJ SINGH JADON,
                            AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCCUPATION: DIRECTOR AT
                            PRESTIGIOUS SCORES PVT. LTD. BEHIND NAMAN
                            APARTMENT GOVINDPURI THATIPUR, GWALIOR
                            (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                          .....PETITIONER
                            (BY SHRI VIJAY DUTTA SHARMA - ADVOCATE)

                            AND
                            THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGHT VAN
                            VIBHAG VAN PARIKSHETRA MORENA,(MADHYA
                            PRADESH)

                                                                                         .....RESPONDENT
                            (BY SHRI VIREDNRA PAL - DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL)

                                  Th is revision coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
                            following:
                                                                ORDER

Present Criminal Revision filed u/s 397 r/w 401 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing and setting aside of the order framing charge dated 27/04/2022 passed in RCT No.1127/2019 by the learned JMFC, Morena vide which the charge u/s 26(1)(h) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 is framed against the revisionist in relation to R.C.No.32/2018 arising out of Van Apraadh Kramank 22351/2003 and all other consequential proceedings arising therewith.

Petitioner relying upon judgment of Apex Court in (2007) 3 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 65 passed in case of Central Bureau of Investigation Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIJAY TRIPATHI Signing time: 6/16/2023 10:09:31 AM

Versus State of Gujarat in which it has been decided revision can be preferred directly before High Court against the order of CJM, instead of first moving Sessions Court. There is no bar for High Court to entertain such revision petition held on facts. High Court erred in criticising CBI for filing petition under Section 397 directly before it bypassing Sessions Court. High Court has power to hear the revision petition directly.

In brief, prosecution case is that on 19.09.2018 on the directions of Upvan Mandalidhikari, a team of panch was sent for spot inspection where the firm of petitioner namely Prestigious Scores Private Ltd was carrying on mining task and on the said inspection, it was found by the inspecting team that a road

was constructed in the forest area, when inquired about local inhabitants came to be constructed by the firm of the petitioner of which the petitioner is director. On the basis of the aforesaid, criminal proceedings was initiated by the Forest Department for violation & offence committed u/s. 26(1)(h) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, wherein after investigation, the chargesheet was filed before learned trial Court and the trial got initiated after framing of charge against the present petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner made submission that he got information from Collector Mining, Morena who had supplied the information dated 22.01.2019 that on 19.12.2018 village Dhanely Tehsil Morena at Survey No.2936 Rakba 4.00 hectares, petitioner as a Prestigious Scores Pvt. Ltd. was having mining lease with crusher. Mining Inspector Devendra Chidaar along with Forest Officer inspected the spot and forest boundary. It was found that crusher was installed in Revenue Land. Forest land was at a distance of 250 metres from the installation of crusher. Aforesaid land is not forest land, it

Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIJAY TRIPATHI Signing time: 6/16/2023 10:09:31 AM

comes under the Revenue Land and the road is also in Revenue Land, it was not disputed in Forest Land.

Learned Deputy Government Advocate vehemently opposed the petition by submitting that petitioner ought to have raise all the grounds before trial Court and prayed for its rejection.

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case as well as on going through documents available on record it is clear that the land in which a construction made by the petitioner was on the Revenue Land and not is it a Forest Land. Learned trial Court has committed an error in passing the order of framing charges under Section 26(1)(h) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927.

Accordingly, the same is hereby set aside and all other consequential proceedings in relation to RC No. 32/2018 arising out of Van Apraadh Kramank 22351/2003 pending before the Court below are hereby quashed so far as it relates to the petitioner for the offence u/s 26(1)(h) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927.

With the aforesaid, the revision petition stands disposed off. Copy of this order be sent to the trial court concerned for information. Certified copy, as per rules.

(DEEPAK KUMAR AGARWAL) JUDGE Vijay

Signature Not Verified Signed by: VIJAY TRIPATHI Signing time: 6/16/2023 10:09:31 AM