R.R. Prasad, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the State. This application has been filed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding of B.F. Case No. 144 of 2000 including the order dated 03.10.2000 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad whereby and whereunder learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad took cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 33 of the Bihar Forest Act, 1927 against the petitioners.
(2.) IT appears that when these two petitioners and one other person were found indulging themselves in doing mining work over the land situated within the protected forest, an offence report was submitted on 23.11.1998. After investigation, the prosecution report dated 08.08.2000 was submitted, upon which cognizance of the offence was taken on 03.10.2000. That order is under challenge. Mr. Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners cannot be said to have committed any offence by doing mining work over the land which has been claimed to be the forest land as when the petitioners had earlier been restrained from doing mining work over the piece of land, alleged to be the forest land by the Forest Department, the petitioners did prefer writ application before this Hon'ble Court vide CWJC No. 66 of 1999 (R), which was admitted on 11.02.1999 whereby an order was also passed that "during the pendency of the writ petition, the respondents are restrained from interfering with the mining activities of the petitioner in connection with the project commonly known as Muraidih Open Cast Project."
(3.) IT was further submitted that though the Forest Department has claimed the land as protected forest by virtue of the Notification issued in the year 1964, but it lost its force after expiry of 30 years. Thereafter, no further notification has been made and if any further notification would have been made after expiry of thirty years reference should have been made in the prosecution report itself. But since, the prosecution report is silent, it can easily be assumed that after 1964, no notification was issued in terms of Section 30 of the Indian Forest Act and on this ground alone, entire prosecution, in view of the decisions rendered in the cases of Jagdish Mehta vs. State of Jharkhand and others : [2003 (2) J.C.R 525 (Jhr)] and Janu Khan and others vs. State of Bihar (AIR 1960 Pat 213) is fit to be quashed.;