SURENDRA MOHAN JHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, common in both cases, Surendra Mohan Jha, Deputy General Manager (Administration) of a Public Limited Company, running in the name and style of M/s Kalyanpur Cement Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the Company") alongwith other officials thereof are sought to be prosecuted at the instance of the Forest Department, Government of Bihar, in both the cases on the ground of the Company allegedly using shovel machine, drilling machine, tractor, jeep etc. in the forest area and indulging in illegal mining operation, notwithstanding the fact that the matter stands concluded finally by a decision of this Court dated 14.9.2006 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 27422 of 2003.

(2.) BOTH these cases have been taken up together for hearing as they happen to be similar in nature and involve identical points of law in issue and having been heard together are being disposed of by this common order. In Cr. Misc. No. 24802 of 2006 the petitioner has prayed for the quashing of the order dated 20.1.2006 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Rohtas in Cr. Rev. No. 7 of 2004 whereby the case has been remanded back as also the order dated 12.7.2002 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtas, in Forest Case No. 66 of 2002 whereunder he has taken cognizance under Sections 33, 41, 52 Indian Forest Act. In Cr. Misc. No. 24803 the petitioner has prayed for the quashing of the order dated 20.1.2006 passed by the Sessions Judge, Rohtas, in Cr. Rev. No. 308 of 2003 whereby he has remanded the case as also the order dated 31.7.2003 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rohtas, in Forest Case No. 88 of 2002 whereunder he has taken cognizance under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act and Section 2/3 of the Forest (Conservation) Act.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY , the Company is engaged in the business of manufacturing cement for which limestone is a necessary and essential ingredient and for quarrying limestones the Company has obtained several leases from the State Government over various tracts of land. Past history does not appear to be congenial and reveals that there is constant incompatibility between the Company and its officials on the one hand and the officers of the Forest Department on the other with the latter being given to hurling repeated and unwarranted accusations on the Company and its officials resorting to illegal mining and removing stones from the reserved forest areas falling outside the leasehold lands of the Company and the resultant litigations ending in favour of the Company. The two cases at hand appear to be such cases where there has been a fresh round of accusations by the officials of the Forest Department in respect of illegal mining by the Company from within the lands of Reserved Forest Areas.