STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Vs. ISHAN YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Forest Range Officer, Range Uttar Bortalab, Forest Division Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon on 15.2.2014 registered the forest offence under POR No.16/2009 for offence punishable under Section 26 (1) (f) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (hereinafter called as "the Act of 1927") against the respondents herein and also simultaneously investigated the matter under Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 (hereinafter called as "the Act of 1984") and on 19.2.2014 sought permission from the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dongargarh to file charge-sheet for offences punishable under Section 3 of the Act of 1984 against the respondents herein. Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class by order dated 19.2.2014 dismissed the application holding that offences under Section 3 of the Act of 1984 are cognizable offences and it has to be investigated by the police officer under the Code of Criminal Procedure, as such, permission cannot be granted to file charge-sheet for offence punishable under Section 3 of the Act of 1984. The petitioner/State assailed that order before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Link Court, Dongargarh and that Court by the impugned order concurred with the view expressed by learned JMFC and dismissed the revision. Feeling aggrieved against the order passed by two Courts below, this petition under Section 482 of the CrPC has been filed by the State/petitioner.

(2.) Mr.Ghanshyam Patel, learned Government Advocate for the petitioner/State, would submit that both the Courts below are absolutely unjustified in not granting the application to the Forest Range Officer, Department of Forest to file charge-sheet for cognizable offence punishable under Section 3 of the Act of 1984 against the respondents herein and thereby committed the illegality, which deserve to be set aside.

(3.) On the other hand, Mr.Akash Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents, would support the impugned order and submit that the orders passed by two Courts below are strictly in accordance with law.