SATTAR Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this criminal miscellaneous application moved Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, the prayer has been made to quash and set aside the entire proceedings of the complaint case No. 14 of 2007 State v. Sattar and Ors. launched for the offence of Sections 27, 29, 31 and 51 of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act).

(2.) HAVING heard the learned Counsel of the Petitioner, it appears that the alleged incident took place on 4.4.2004. Narrating the same in the form of complaint to the superior officers, the Forest Guard Jagdish Singh apprised the details of the occurrence on the same day. The facts are that Petitioner along with his companions Kurban and Gulfam entered into the restricted area of Rajaji National Park having axe in their hands. They were cutting some trees of 'KHAIR' and 'SHEESHAM' in order to strive to commit theft of the same from the restricted area. They were raided by the forest guard Jagdish Singh. Accused persons, on hearing the voice of forest guard, ran away from the spot, hence, the report was submitted by forest guard Jagdish Singh to his superiors.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel of the Petitioner has argued that the Court, on the same day, i.e. on 23.4.2007, passed the order of cognizance, issuing summons to the accused persons, without making any order whether it considered the delay condonation application favourably to the Forest Department. It was further argued that out of all the Sections, which find mention in the chargesheet, only Section 51 is a penal one envisaging the maximum punishment of three years for the offence complained of, and this period of three years will be reckoned since the date of commission of crime or detection of the same, and that date is 4.4.2004. This way, the maximum period of limitation could be availed by Forest Department to file the chargesheet was up to 3.4.2007. It is obvious that the chargesheet was filed 20 days late wherefore no explanation has been rendered by the Forest Department, much less any reason stated by the Court condoning the delay and then taking the cognizance in the matter. Reliance has been placed upon a judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "State of Himachal Pradesh v. Tara Dutt and Anr. reported in : AIR 2000 SC 297", wherein it was held as under: -