Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the State. In this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with C3 Case No. 29 of 2008, including the order dated 7.8.2008, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghatshila, whereby and whereunder cognizance has, been taken for the offence punishable under sections 26, 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act. The prosecution was initiated by the Forest Department, in which it was stated that on 22.5.2008, forest guard Subhash Chandra Dhal along -with another forest guard Praveen Kumar Mandal had gone to Vasadera for inspection. It has been alleged that the villagers disclosed that the accused had got constructed a path 20 chain in length by removing the bushes with is the help of villagers and that he is collecting manganese stone from an old mine. It is stated that thereafter the accused had tried to take help from the villagers but no help could be given since the area is very sensitive. It was further alleged that during the course of inquiry, the accused was summoned but he did not make himself present. It has also been stated that the accused had been planning to mine in the said area in a large scale and about 10 tones of stone were found dumped and the loss, which was suffered by the department, was estimated to the tune of Rs. 3,45,000/ -.
(2.) AFTER the offence report was submitted, cognizance was taken by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghatshila vide order dated 7.8.2008 for the offence punishable under sections 26, 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act. It has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that none of the provisions, under which cognizance has been taken, is applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. It was further submitted that section 41 of the Indian Forest Act (the Act for short) deals with the rule making power of the State Government to regulate transit of forest produce and it is not a penal offence. It has also been submitted that no where it has been stated by the complainant as to which rule under section 41(2) of the Act has been contravened by the petitioner, which is punishable under section 42 of the Act. While referring to section 26 of the Act, it has been submitted that quarrying of stones by the petitioner has not been seen by any other person and the entire allegation is based on hearsay witness. In this context, learned Counsel for the petitioner has referred to a case of Prasanna Kumar Mahapatra @ P.L. Mahapatra @ P.K. Patra v. State of Jharkhand and others : 2010 (2) JCR 113 (Jhr), and in the case of Jagdish Mehta v. State of Jharkhand and others : 2003 (2) JCR 525 (Jhr).
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the State on the other hand has submitted that the villagers have specifically stated that it was the petitioner, who had constructed the road in the jungle and that he was making plans for mining manganese and the acts/actions of the petitioner resultantly had caused a huge loss to the department.;