SURENDRA PRASAD SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Three Petitioners, who are officers of a Government of India Undertaking namely, Pyrites Phosphates and Chemicals Ltd. '(hereinafter referred to as P.P.C.L.) are before this Court, while invoking inherent jurisdiction with a prayer to quash an order dated 14.12.2000 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence under Sections 33, 41 and 42 of the Forest Act.

(2.) Short fact of the case is that a written report was submitted by one Sri Ravi Shankar Rai, Forest Guard to the Forest Range Officer, Tilouthu disclosing therein that on 29.8.1998 at about 5.00 P.M., while he was moving in Kachchawar restricted forest, he witnessed that some labourers were un-loading waste minerals from Truck and Tractor. He tried to restrain them. However, they disclosed that they were working as Labourers in P.P.C.L. and they un-loaded the waste minerals. It was disclosed that due to such un-loading, about four acres land of the forest was destroyed. Subsequently, an offence report (prosecution report) was submitted in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in which the Petitioners were named as accused persons. After submission of the offence report, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, by an order dated 14.12.2000, took cognizance of offence under Sections 33, 41 and 42 of the Forest Act and directed for summoning the Petitioners.

(3.) Md. Faiz Ahmad, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners, while challenging the impugned order, submits that Forest Guard, in its report, had not even whispered about the name of the persons, who were un-loading waste minerals nor he was bothered to mention registration number of either Truck or Tractor. It was further submitted that since the Petitioners were senior officers in P.P.C.L. i.e. Petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were working as Manager (Administration), Executive Director, Mines and Manager respectively they have been made accused without any cogent reason. It was further submitted that in absence of any materials on record even whispering against the Petitioner save and except naming them in the offence report, the learned Magistrate was not required to proceed with the case by way of taking cognizance against the Petitioners. On the ground of absence of any material, it has been prayed that order of cognizance may be set aside.