J.P. LATH Vs. THE STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE four revisions which have been heard analogously shall be governed by this judgment. J.P. Lath is the Petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 280 of 1983 and Criminal Revision No. 281 of 1983 and his prayer is to quash the proceeding initiated against him by the learned S.D.J.M., Karanjia, in 2(b) CC No. 4 of 1983 and 2(b)CC No. 5 of 1983 respectively. Sukadeo Prasad is the Petitioner in Criminal Revision No. 294 of 1983 and Criminal Revision No. 295 of 1983 and he has made the same prayer in respect of the aforesaid two cases. For the sake of convenience J. P. Lath who is accused No. 1 and Sukadeo Prasad who is accused No. 2 in the two cases shall hereafter be referred to as Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 respectively.

(2.) FACTS of the case may be briefly stated. Petitioner No. 2, Sukadeo Prasad, is the constituted attorney of M/s. Utkal Contractors and Joinary Private Limited and Petitioner No. 1 is the Managing Director of the said firm. In the case registered as 2(b)CC No. 5 of 1983 it is alleged that on 27 -5 -1982 at 9 p. m. truck No. OSS 1597 carrying 120 bags of Sal seeds was checked at Jasipur checkgate and it was found that permit No. 29/4752 dated 27 -5 -1982 issued by Petitioner No. 2 had been endorsed by one G. Mahanta who had certified that 100 bags of Sal seeds were being transported in the truck. It is further alleged that there was no permit for the additional 20 bags found in the truck and on enquiry it was learnt that G. Mahanta was a fictitious person. It appears that a statement had been taken from Petitioner No. 2 at the spot. After completion of enquiry prosecution report was submitted against the two Petitioners under Rule 21 of the Orissa Timber and other Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1980 and Section 468 , I.P.C. by the Project Manager, Research and Development, Similipal Forest Development Corporation Limited, Karanjia, who has been notified to be a Forest Officer and empowered by the State Government to forward the offence report to the court under Rule 11 of the Orissa Forest (Detection, Enquiry and Disposal of Forest Offences) Rules, 1980 vide Government Notification No. SRO 464/80 dated 16/17th April, 1980, published in the gazette date May 9, 1980. On receipt of the prosecution report the learned S.D.J.M., Karanjia, took cognisance against both the Petitioner under Rule 21 of the Orissa Timber and other Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1980 by his order No. 1 dated 9 -3 -1983. In the case registered as 2(b)CO No. 4/83 it is alleged that on 1 -6 -1982 at 8 a. m. 112 bags of Sal seeds were being carried in truck No. OSS 1597 on the strength permit No. 35/4752 dated 31 -5 -1982 and on being checked at the Jasipur check -gate it was found that out of 112 bags of Sal seeds, 23 bags had been loaded at Tato and Petitioner No. 2 instead of issuing a fresh permit in respect of these 23 bags which were loaded at Tato, had added the quantity of the produce on the same permit and had also shown in the same permit the place Tato without putting his initials to the additions. On completion of enquiry prosecution report was submitted against the two Petitioners under Rule 21 of the Orissa Timber and other Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1980 read with Section 83 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 by the Project Manager, Research and Development, Similipal Forest Development Corporation Limited, Karanjia. On receipt of the prosecution report the learned S.D.J.M., Karanjia took cognizance against the two Petitioners under Section 83 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 and under Rule 21 of the Orissa Timber and other Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1980 by his order No. 1 dated 8 -3 -1983. The orders of the learned Magistrate taking cognizance against the two Petitioners are under challenge in these revisions.

(3.) FOR the reasons stated above, Criminal Revision No. 280 of 1983 and Criminal Revision No. 281 of 1983 are allowed and the proceedings initiated against Petitioner No. 1, J.P. Lath, in 2(b) CC No. 4 of 1983 and 2(b)CC No. 5 of 1983 pending in the file of the learned S.D.J.M., Karanjia are quashed. I would, however, make it clear that the mere fact that the proceedings have been quashed against Petitioner No. 1 will not prevent the learned Magistrate from exercising his discretion if in course of further proceedings he is fully satisfied that a case for taking cognizance against Petitioner No. 1 has been made out on the additional evidence led before him. Criminal Revision No. 294 of 1983 and Criminal Revision No. 295 or 1983 are rejected and the proceedings in 2(b)CC No. 4 of 1983 and 2(b)CC No. 5 of 1983 shall continue against Petitioner No. 2, Sukadeo Prasad and be disposed of according to law. L.C.R. be returned immediately.