Search:
Introduction | About Us | Legal Queries | Forums | Events | Campaigns | FAQ's | Contact Us | Home
CONTENTS OF THIS WEBSITE IS ONLY FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSE
You are here: Home Forest Case Laws High Court Uma Shanker Singh and Ors. v. State of Jharkhand and Anr.:Decided On: 19.01.2010
TRADE AND ENVIRONMENT
 
Document Actions

Uma Shanker Singh and Ors. v. State of Jharkhand and Anr.:Decided On: 19.01.2010

by admin last modified 2010-10-30 12:27

The petitioners in this case through an application under section 482 of the CrPC sought the quashing of the criminal proceedings and the order passed by the Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence under section 33 of the Indian Forest Act and Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr. M.P. No. 1207 of 2006

Decided On: 19.01.2010

Uma Shanker Singh and Ors. v. State of Jharkhand and Anr.

 

The petitioners in this case through an application under section 482 of the CrPC sought the quashing of the criminal proceedings and the order passed by the Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence under section 33 of the Indian Forest Act and Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. The facts of the case were that the Forest Guard while on patrolling duty found the people of Easter Coalfield Limited (ECL) dumping overburden (soil and stone) removed from the ECL mines and colliery and consequently encroaching the forest land. He submitted a prosecution report which stated that this was being carried out since 1980. On the basis of this report, a case was instituted for offences under the above-mentioned provision against various officers in ECL and the Magistrate also took cognizance of the same.

The petitioners raised the contention that since the dumping had been carried out since 1980 cognizance was barred under section 468 of the CrPC. They also argued that in the absence of any notification of protected forest under section 30 of the Indian Forest Act, the provisions under section 33 could not be sustained. In addition, they challenged the Magistrate taking cognizance under section 2 of the Forest Act as being without jurisdiction.

The court held that based on the report there admittedly was a case of dumping overburden on the forest land. Beyond this, all the questions raised by the appellants could not be considered in an application under section 484 of the CrPC. The appropriate stage to do so was at the time of framing of charge. It was held that since there was truth in the allegations made in the prosecution report, the criminal proceeding and the order of cognizance cannot be quashed.