MADHU AGARWAL Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the State.

(2.) AFTER the offence report was submitted, cognizance was taken by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghatshila vide order dated 7.8.2008 for the offence punishable under sections 26, 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the State on the other hand has submitted that the villagers have specifically stated that it was the petitioner, who had constructed the road in the jungle and that he was making plans for mining manganese and the acts/actions of the petitioner resultantly had caused a huge loss to the department.