PRASHANT KUMAR, J. - (1.) THIS is an application for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with G. Case No. 231 of 2005 for alleged offence under Sections 33, 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh, (now pending in the court of K. Pattadar, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Hazaribagh). The petitioner has also filed an Interlocutory Application whereby he challenged the order dated 17.06.2006 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh in G. Case No. 231 of 2005 corresponding to T.R. Case No. 232 of 2009, whereby and whereunder he took cognizance of the offence under Sections 33, 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act.
(2.) THE case of prosecution in brief is that on 14.05.2005, the complainant, Forest Range Officer of Gola Range, had intercepted a truck bearing No. PB -07B 3966 loaded with coal. It is further alleged that after seeing the complainant, the driver fled away however, khalasi of the truck was arrested and on demand he could not produce any document relating to transit of coal. Accordingly, the coal was seized and an offence report was sent to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh. It then appears that after obtaining the sanction from the Divisional Forest Officer, Ramgarh Forest Division, the prosecution report was submitted in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh, who, vide order dated 17.06.2006, took cognizance of the offences under Sections 33, 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act. Equivalent Citation:2009 -JX(Jhar) -0 -1154 It is submitted by Sri Anil Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner that from perusal of offence report as well as the prosecution report, no case under Sections 33, 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act is made out. Hence, the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance, is an abuse of the process of the court. Hence, the same cannot be sustained by this Court.
(3.) LEARNED Additional P.P. however submits that petitioner had not followed transit rules for transporting the coal and therefore, he had violated the provisions of Forest Act. Hence, there is no illegality in the prosecution of accused petitioner.;