ANAND KUMAR GOENKA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 9-5-97 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Maihar in Criminal Case No. 12/97.

(2.) IT appears that the Forest Range Officer, Maihar investigated the offences punishable under Sections 33 and 63 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (for short "the Forest Act") and the offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, (for short "the Act of 1984" ).

(3.) THE charge-sheet against the petitioner and the other accused persons was filed in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Maihar. The petitioner and the other accused persons were charged for violation of Sections 33 and 63 of the Forest Act and also for violation of Rules 3 and 29 of M. P. Transit Rules framed under the Forest Act of 1927, Further the charge-sheet alleged that the petitioner has also violated the Forest (Conservation) Act. These are the forest offences which were indicated in the charge-sheet. The charge-sheet did not stop here but went ahead to state that the accused persons had committed offence under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act of 1984.