PRABHAT KUMAR NAYAK Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision is directed against the order impugned dated 16.5.2009, passed by the SDJM, Porahat at Chaibasa in Sonua P.S. Case No.13/94, corresponding to G.R. No.149/94, by which cognizance was taken for the alleged offence under Sections 379, 411, 465, 467, 468 and 120B, Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and others. Now the case is pending before Sri A. Kumar, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Porahat at Chaibasa.

(2.) Prosecution story in short was that the officer-in-charge of Sonua police station recorded self-statement on 14.5.1994 near Sonua Primary Health Centre that on secret information regarding a truck loaded with Kendu leaves was standing near Sonua Durga Sthan, Forest Department's Check Post and the forest staff posted at the Check Post were about to pass the truck through the Check Post, the informant went there and found the truck No. BRS 3552. He then asked the truck to stop, pursuant to which driver of the truck Shiv Prakash Mistry and the Forest Guard Amar Nath Jha came out and on being asked to show transit papers with regard to transportation of Kendu leaves, the driver produced the papers wherein some columns were found unfilled. Similarly, the number of polas were not mentioned and the number of standard sacks were also not mentioned in the transit permit. There were discrepancies in the number of sacks mentioned in the permit with that of the number of sacks found on the truck. The informant speculated that such type of illegality in the documents could not have been done by the junior officials of the Forest Department without collusion with the higher officials like Ranger and Divisional Manager of the Bihar State Forest Development Corporation, as such, the case was instituted against the petitioner and others for the various offences under the Indian Penal Code. The driver of the truck namely Shiv Prakash Mistry and the Forest Guard namely Amar Nath Jha were arrested by the police and the informant himself took up the investigation.

(3.) The short point, which has been raised in the instant criminal revision is as to whether on the face of the special law, the criminal prosecution of the petitioner under the penal provisions of general law is maintainable?