Harish Chandra Mishra, J. - (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Counsel for the State. Petitioners have prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding against them in connection with G -172 of 2003, as also the order dated 21.1.2006 passed therein, by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh, whereby the cognizance, for the offence under Sec. 33 of the Indian Forest Act, has been taken against the petitioners.
(2.) The prosecution report has been brought on record, which shows that the petitioners, being the Chairman -cum -Managing Director and the General Manager of the Central Coalfields Ltd., as also the Project Officer and the Manager of Kuju project, of Central Coalfields Ltd., have been made accused, alleging that they were engaged in the mining operations of coal in Hesagraha, Murpa, Pokhira, Kuju and Banbar projected forests, on, in all measuring about 277.80 acres of forest land, thereby causing loss of about Rs. 5,62,10,000/ - to the Forest Department. It is stated in the prosecution report that these forests have been notified by notification dated 2.1.1953. With these allegations, the prosecution report was submitted, on the basis of which, by order dated 21.1.2006, the Court below took cognizance for the offence under Sec. 33 of the Indian Forest Act against the petitioners.
(3.) The case of the petitioners is that the mining operations were being carried out by the Central Coalfields Ltd. According to the petitioners' case, the lands in question had been acquired in phase wise manner under the provisions of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957, for mining operations and other ancillary activities, and were also published in the Gazette of India, and the same were transferred to M/s. Central Coalfields Ltd. Subsequently, the Central Government enacted the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. There was a dispute whether in view of the fact that the lands being acquired under the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957, the provisions of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 were applicable or not, and the matter went upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Cr. Appeal No. 70 of 1998, against the similar prosecution against the officials of Central Coalfields Ltd. In the said Cr. Appeal, the State of Jharkhand agreed that it shall not pursue the prosecution till the final orders are made on the application filed by the Central Coalfields Ltd., under Sec. 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, and in view of the stand of the State of Jharkhand before the Apex Court, the appeal was withdrawn by Central Coalfields Ltd., reserving the liberty to challenge any adverse order made under Sec. 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, as also to raise all such pleas in appropriate proceedings. The said criminal appeal was accordingly, disposed of with the liberty as aforesaid. The order passed by the Apex Court has been brought on record as Annexure -4 to this application. It is the case of the petitioners that no final order had been passed under Sec. 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, till the launching of the prosecution against the petitioners. It is also the case of the petitioners that demand notice for payment of compensation had been received from the Forest Department and the said payments have been made by the Central Coalfields Ltd., still the prosecutions have been lodged against the petitioners, being the Senior Officials of the Central Coalfields Ltd.;