BASANT Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has questioned the legality of the order dated 10.10.2014 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chaibasa in C/3 Case No. 33 of 2014 whereby and whereunder the cognizance of the offence under Ss. 26, 41, 42, 52 and 64 of the Indian Forest Act has been taken against the petitioner and one Genda Nag, driver of the apprehended tractor. The facts of the case, which is based on the prosecution report cum offence report of Range Forest Officer, Gua Forest Range and relevant for the proper adjudication of the issue involved in this case, in short, is that on 28.3.2014 while forest officials were on patrolling duty at about 10.30 a.m., they entered into the Reserved Forest Compartment No. 13 near Hathi Chowk, Village Jojoguttu where two culverts were under construction and found a tractor loaded with boulders. Seeing the forest officials, labourers fled away but the driver of the tractor was apprehended and on enquiry the driver produced some documents and disclosed his name as Genda Nag and also disclosed the name of the owner of the said tractor as Bashant Harlalka (the petitioner). Whereafter, after completing the formalities, the aforesaid prosecution report/offence report was submitted.

(2.) It appears from the record that the Court below vide order dated 10.10.2014 took cognizance of offence as indicated above against this petitioner and the driver of the tractor and directed to issue summons for their appearance.

(3.) Mr. N.K. Pasari, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner assailing the order impugned taking cognizance, seriously contended that though the registration certificate of the tractor in question was produced before the concerned officer of the Forest Department showing Mukesh Harlaka being the registered owner of the vehicle but even then merely relying upon the statement of the apprehended driver of the said tractor Genda Nag that the owner of the vehicle is present petitioner, the Court below took cognizance of the offence in a mechanical manner without applying judicial mind. It was also submitted that the said prosecution cum offence report ought to have been filed against the registered owner of the vehicle and the driver being the joint tortfeasers and the filing of the offence report against the petitioner is impermissible. It was also submitted that from mere perusal of the order taking cognizance dated 10.10.2014, it would appear that the learned Court below has not at all applied its judicial mind and in a mechanical manner filled up only the blanks left by office staff in the format like the words 'cognizance' and 'the relevant sections' which clearly stipulates the non -application of judicial mind. Learned Counsel further relying upon a judgment reported in the case A.P. Arya and another v/s. State of Jahrkhand and another : 2011 (3) JCR 471 (Jhr.), submitted that the cognizance taken without application of mind only by filling up the blanks in the format is a mechanical exercise and unsustainable. Lastly, it was contended that no proceeding can be initiated as the area in question, from where the tractor has been seized, was not a reserved forest area as the said area has never been declared as reserved forest area under any notification after the notification of 27.2.1907 published in Calcutta Gazette.