Prashant Kumar, J. - (1.) ANTICIPATORY bail application filed by Sukhdeo Singh and Munshi Singh, in connection with G. Case No. 284 of 2009, pending in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) -VI, Koderma, is moved by Sri Deepak Kumar learned counsel for the petitioners and opposed by Smt. Lily Sahay learned Additional P.P. for the State. It is alleged that the petitioners had encroached forest land and constructed a house over it. Accordingly petitioner arraigned under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act.
(2.) IT is submitted by Sri Deepak Kumar learned counsel for the petitioners, that the land in question is not a forest land because there is no notification under Section 30 of the Indian Forest Act. Thus, he submits that no offence under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act made out. On the other hand, Smt. Lily Sahay learned Additional P.P. submits that the land in question is a protected forest, for that a notification issued under Section 29 of the Indian Forest Act as back as in the year 1953. She further submits that thereafter another notification issued by the State Government on 23rd May, 1967 under Section 30 of the Indian Forest Act. According to the aforesaid notification, certain trees grown on the forest area had been reserved as per Section 30(a) of the Indian Forest Act. By the same notification according to provision contained in Section 30(c) of the Indian Forest Act, general public were prohibited from doing certain acts including construction of any building over the land. Accordingly, she submits that the petitioners have committed an offence under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act.
(3.) IN reply Sri Deepak Kumar submits that aforesaid notification dated 23rd May 1967 had lost its force due to efflux of time, because a notification issued under Section 30 of the Indian Forest Act remain enforceable only for 30 years. Aforesaid submission of Sri Deepak Kumar is not worth acceptable.;