AMARESHWAR SAHAY, J. - (1.) BOTH the parties were heard in detail at this stage itself and, as such, this application is being disposed of finally with the consent of the parties.
(2.) THE petitioners have prayed for quashing of the prosecution of the petitioners for the offence under Sec.33 of the Indian Forest Act and Sections 2, 3(A), (B) of the Forest Conservation Act. A prosecution report was submitted by the Forest Range Officer, Lohardaga against the petitioners alleging therein that on 20.5.1998 while he was on patrolling duty he saw that on Kasiyadih Pakhar Road near Ledra Tongri after cutting a Nala. culvert pipe was being set where seven labourers were working and the said work was being done under the orders of petitioner No. 1 Nawal Kishore Birla as stated by petitioner No. 2 Gagan Pandey. On the basis of the said prosecution report, cognizance was taken for the aforesaid offences.
(3.) MR . Bajaj, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the cognizance taken for the said offences on 29.10.2002 was barred by the limitation as envisaged under Sec. 468(2) of the Cr PC. He further submitted that the maximum punishment provided under Sec.33 of the Indian Forest Act is six months imprisonment and the maximum punishment provided under Section 3(A), (B) of the Forest Conservation Act, is simple imprisonment which may extend for a period of 15 days, therefore, the cognizance for the said offences could have been taken within a period of one year from the date of the commission of the offence alleged. It is further submitted that in the present case admittedly the date of alleged occurrence is said to be 20.5.1998 and the cognizance was taken on 29.10.2002, i.e. much after the period of limitation of one year prescribed under Sec. 468(2) of the Cr PC. Therefore, the order taking cognizance as well as the entire prosecution is liable to be quashed.;