AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D.N. Upadhyay
Heard. This Cr. Misc. Petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings, including the order taking cognizance dated 3.10.2008 passed by the CJM, Palamau at Daltonganj in connection with CF case No. 170 of 2008 whereby cognizance u/s 33 of the Indian Forest Act has been taken and the petitioner has been summoned to face trial.
It is contended that the prosecution report has been submitted against the petitioner for committing offence u/s 33(c) of the Indian Forest Act. It is pointed out that the place of occurrence falls within Sahi PF Area, Plot No. 577, thana No. 275 within PS Chhatarpur, District Palamau and the said Sahi PF Is notified vide notification No. 10154/52 - 145 R dated 9.1.1953. No further notification declaring the land as the protected forest after thirty years of the said notification has been published in the gazette and therefore the place of occurrence on the date of incident could not be considered as protected forest and if it was so, the petitioner is not liable to be punished u/s 33(c) of the Indian Forest Act. Learned counsel has also relied upon the judgment of this Court reported in 2003 (2) JCR 525.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State though opposed the prayer, but failed to bring on record further notification after expiry of 30 years declaring the place of occurrence as protected forest.
I have examined the relevant provisions of Section 30 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 which reads as follows :
Section 30. Power to issue notification reserving trees, etc. The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette :
(a) declare any trees or class of trees in a protected forest to be reserved from a date fixed by the notification;
(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 terms, provided that the remainder of such forest be sufficient, and in a locality reasonably convenient, for the due exercise of the right suspended in the portion so closed; or
(c) prohibit, from a date fixed as aforesaid, the quarrying of stone, or the burning of lime or charcoal, or the collection or subjection to any manufacturing process, or removal of, any forest-produce in any such forest, and the breaking up or clearing for cultivation, for building, for herding cattle or for any other purpose, of any land in any such forest.
Thus, it is clear that the notification declaring the forest land as protected forest shall remain effective for the period of thirty years only from the date of the notification.
In view of the submissions made above and the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is clear that the place of occurrence did not fall within the protected forest and, therefore, the petitioner cannot be prosecuted u/s 33(c) of the Indian Forest Act. For the aforesaid reasons, this Cr. M.P. Is allowed and the entire criminal proceedings including order taking cognizance dated 3.10.2008 in C.F. Case No. 170 of 2008 stand quashed.