PARVATI MURMU Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have preferred this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order impugned dated 24.11.2003 passed by the Chief judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur in C/3 Case No. 242 of 2003, presently pending in the court of Sri K. Pattadar, Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur whereby cognizance of the offence has been taken under Sections 33, 27 and 29 of the Indian Forest Act against the petitioners.

(2.) THE brief fact of the case is that on the offence report of the Forester dated 25.12.2002, the Divisional Forest Officer accorded sanction on 1.10.2003 on the basis of which the case was instituted in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate on 24.11.2003 and, accordingly, cognizance of the offence was taken. It is alleged that Forester on receipt of the offence No. 702 dated 25.12.2002 visited the protected forest situated at Pagda and found that new huts were created by the women folks which were earlier demolished by the Forester. They found cooking food. The women had encroached upon plot Nos. 3 and 5 in the protected forest Pogda since the period of plantation in the said plots and were putting hurdle in the work conducted by the Government. The police station was informed at earlier occasion. They had encroached an acre of forest land of plot No. 3 constituting the offence in various sections of the relevant Acts. The petitioners were named in the offence report who had encroached upon the protected forest land and, therefore, sanction was accorded by the Divisional Forest Officer for prosecuting the petitioners under Section 3 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 as also under Sections 27 and 29 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.

(3.) HOWEVER , on perusal of the offence report, prosecution report of the Divisional Forest Officer, I find there is inconsistency in the cognizance order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 24.11.2003. I find that the offence was reported under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act as well as Sections 27 and 29 of the Wife Life (Protection) Act, 1972, but learned Chief Judicial Magistrate without application of judicial mind and in mechanical manner took the cognizance of the offence under Sections 33, 27 and 29 of the Indian Forest Act which is not appreciated. In view of the above illegality and irregularity, cognizance of the offence taken by him erroneously under Sections 27 and 29 of the Indian Forest Act, vide order dated 24.11.2003 is set aside affirming the cognizance under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act.