RAM KUMAR LAL Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties. In this application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with B.F. Case No. 28 of 2001 including the order dated 13.6.2001 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chas, whereby and whereunder, cognizance has been taken for the offence punishable u/s 33 of the Indian Forest Act. It appears that on the basis of a report from the Forest Guard, a complaint was lodged against the petitioner and other accused persons in which it was alleged that when the Forester, Chandankiyari inspected the place of occurrence situated at Amlabad it was found that M/s. BCCL (Bharat Coking Coal Ltd.) was carrying underground mining works for extraction of coal since long and in this regard information was sought for from the Project Officer, Amlabad vide letters dated 12.3.2001 and 5.4.201 that underground mining works are being carried out about 300 ft. underneath in 142.58 acres of forest land and coal is being extracted. It has further been alleged that on being asked, the local villagers had revealed that in Amlabad Mouza, Revenue P.S. No. 213 coal was being extracted from the underground mines situated on Plot Nos. 2, 51, 78, 820, 821, 822, 813, 231, 197, 162, 187 which have been notified as forest land vide Notification No. C/F -17014/58 -1429(R) dated 24.5.1958.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was at the relevant point of time posted as the Director of M/s. BCCL having its office at Dhanbad. It has been submitted that in fact underground coal mining activities was being carried out prior to nationalization by the ex -colliery owner since 1916 and after vesting by the coal company M/s. BCCL without any objection whatsoever. It has further been submitted that the petitioner was never posted in the Amlabad Project of M/s. BCCL and that the petitioner has been said to be made vicariously liable for the alleged offence u/s 33 of the India Forest Act although there is no concept of vicarious liability in the statute itself. Accordingly, it has been prayed that the entire criminal proceeding against the petitioner be quashed.

(3.) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for the State has submitted that M/s. BCCL was carrying out underground mining activities over a substantial area of the forest land and such activities on the part of the company was in violation of the provisions of the Forest Act and the petitioner being the Director (Technical) of M/s. BCCL (Bharat Coking Coal Ltd.), Dhanbad cannot be absolved of his liability from being prosecuted u/s 33 of the Indian Forest Act.