RAJ KAPOOR SINHA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Cr. Revision is directed against the order impugned dated 16.05.2009 by which the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Porahat at Chaibasa took cognizance of the offence under Sections 379/411/465/467/468 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code arising out of Sonua P.S. Case No. 13 of 1994 corresponding to G.R. No. 149 of 1994.

(2.) The prosecution story in short was that the Officer-in-Charge of Sonua Police Station recorded his self statement on 14.05.1994 near Sonua Primary Health Centre narrating, inter alia, that pursuant to a secret information that a truck was illegally carrying Kendu leaves and it was standing near Sonua Durgasthan Forest Check Post and that the forest officials were trying to get the truck released, he reached near Sonua Forest Check Post at 18.45 hours and found the truck No. BRS 3552 there and he asked the truck driver to stop. On demand, the driver Shiv Prakash Mistry presented the transit permit and on its perusal the informant found discrepancy in the entry made in the permit with that of the bundles of the Kendu leaves being carried on the said truck. According to the informant the transit permit was not even filled properly. The truck with the Kendu leaves loaded thereon was seized in presence of the witnesses including the documents produced by the driver and a seizure list was prepared, a copy of which was given to the driver of the truck No. BRS 3552. The informant specifically alleged that he found one bag of Kendu leaves extra beyond what was given in the transit permit hence he instituted a case for the alleged offence under Sections 419/420/467/468/379/411 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code against the officials of the Forest Department by giving reasonings that such occurrence was given effect to in collusion with the higher officials like Ranger and Divisional Manager of the Bihar State Forest Development Corporation.

(3.) The learned Counsel submitted that admittedly, the petitioner was the Divisional Manager, Bihar State Forest Development Corporation, Chaibasa and his name was given by the informant police officer without verifying the actual fact. The learned Counsel further explained that for documental lapses/non-entry of particulars in relevant columns of the transit channel, that too by the subordinate police officers the petitioner being the Senior Forest Officer should not have been fastened with the criminal liability and that in the entire FIR. no overt act/participation has been attributed against the petitioner except the conjecture and surmises only because the petitioner being the Senior Forest Officer of the rank of Divisional Manager and that he aught not be vicariously liable for the act if at all done by his subordinates. The discrepancy between the actual loaded Kendu leaves and the quantity mentioned in the permit carried by the driver as alleged by the informant-police officer was so negligible so that it could have been ignored and it was nowhere stated that the bags of the Kendu leaves were actually physically counted by him after unloading the bags from the truck and so the suspicion if at all raised cannot be converted into credible conclusion and authoritative finding of the informant with regard to the complicity of the petitioner who was neither the drawer of the permit nor was found at any place by the informant alleging his attribution. The Officer-in-Charge had noted in the case diary that he had intercepted the said truck after it had already been crossed Durgasthan Forest Check Post near Primary Health Centre whereas in reality the truck was seized at the check post while the documents produced by the driver of the truck were being examined by the forest guards posted at the check post and the informant police officer had given altogether a wrong statement with ulterior motive and to implicate all the forest officials of all the ranks of the Forest Department maliciously with ill motive.