SANJAY SAW Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant petition has been filed for quashing the order dtd. 8/9/2021 passed in Complaint Case No.62 of 2017 wherein cognizance has been taken for the offence under Ss. 33, 42 of the Indian Forest Act against the petitioner.

(2.) The brief fact of the case is that on 16/2/2017, during course of patrolling, one truck was intercepted loaded with bauxite regarding which relevant document could not be produced as the driver fled away after the incidence. After enquiry, prosecution report dtd. 16/2/2017 was filed on the basis of which the cognizance has been taken by the impugned order.

(3.) The order taking cognizance has been assailed on two scores. Firstly, in the the petitioner had preferred confiscation appeal against the confiscation of the vehicle by the Forest Department. The Deputy Commissioner, Lohardaga allowed the appeal and set aside the order of confiscation, by recording a finding that it could not be proved that truck bearing registration No.JH08E-4896 was involved in illegal mining of bauxite. Second limb of argument is that if the prosecution report is read in its entirety, no offence will be made out in view of the fact the prosecution report itself states that the bauxite was being transported from the quarry Serendag bauxite Mines, raising Contractor, Mahabir Bhagat, who had issued the quarries Challan stating that the vehicle had been carrying bauxite from its quarry. Reliance has been placed on State of Haryana Versus Bhajan Lal reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335.