BRAJESH KUMAR RAY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS in all the aforesaid cases, common questions of law are Involved, based on common facts, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) THE petitioners claim to be the members of a Co -operative Society, known as Navchetan Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti, Kamaldih, Chas, District -Bokaro. They have challenged the entire criminal proceeding(s), including the order(s), taking cognizance of the offence under Sec.33 of the Indian Forest Act. Some of the petitioners have moved before the District Judge, Bokaro, against the order(s) taking cognizance, by preferring Criminal Revision Applications), which having been dismissed, they have also challenged the revisional order(s) whereas in some of the cases orders passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro, dismissing the discharge petition(s), filed by some of the petitioners, are under challenge. In Cr. MP No. 771 of 2003, the entire criminal proceeding of BF Case No. 17 of 1999 is under challenge; in Cr. MP No. 772 of 2003 the petitioners have challenged the entire criminal proceedings of BF Case No. 32 of 1999; in Cr. MP No. 1558 of 2003 entire criminal proceeding of BF Case No. 33 of 1999 is under challenge; in Cr. MP No. 1559 of 2003 entire criminal proceeding of BF Case No. 18 of 2000 is under challenge; in Cr. MP No. 1560 of 2003 entire criminal proceeding of BF Case No. 34 of 1999 is under Challenge and in Cr. MP No. 1561 of 2003 entire criminal proceeding of BF Case No. 29 of 2000 is under challenge.

(3.) IN the said case, petitioner Haru Mahto and some of his co -sharers were present before the Forest Settlement Officer. The Range Officer, Chas was also present. Haru Mahto produced the khatiyan, receipts and other papers, which were noticed vide order dated 30th August, 1964. After hearing the parties, the Forest Settlement Officer, Dhanbad, held