Notifications under Sections 30(a) and 30(c) of Indian Forest Act have no 30-year expiry unlike Section 30(b); clearing protected forest for building violates ongoing prohibition under 30(c), precluding quashing of proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

Heard the parties.

2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceedings against the petitioners in connection with Complaint Case No. 2284 of 2018 pending in the Court of the learned SDJM, Giridih registered for the offences punishable under Section 33(1)(c) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and the order taking cognizance dated 16.05.2019 passed by the learned SDJM, Giridih in the said case and other reliefs.

3. At the outset, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners do not press other reliefs and confine their prayer only to quash the entire criminal proceedings including the order taking cognizance dated 16.05.2019 passed by the learned SDJM, Giridih in Complaint Case No. 2284 of 2018.

4. Accordingly, all the other reliefs prayed for in this criminal miscellaneous petition, except the prayer prayed for as mentioned above, are rejected as not pressed.

5. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners in contravention to the prohibition of notification under Section 30 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, has cleared for construction of a building over the land within the protected forest area.

6. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that the disputed land was notified by virtue of the notification issued on 31.08.1955 and the same has lost its force after expiry of 30 years as per the provisions of Section 30(b) of the Indian Forest Act, thereafter, no further notification was issued by the State Government and also there is no such mention of the same in the prosecution report. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners, in support of his case, relies upon the judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Dilip Kumar Pandey @ Dalip Pandey Vs. State of Jharkhand reported in 2012 CRI. L. J. 4256 and submits that in the facts of that case where no counter-affidavit was filed by the State and when the case of the prosecution has been made in the prosecution report and also the offence report revealed that the petitioner in that case was a contractor who had been entrusted to repair a road and while repairing work was being done, a case was lodged, in course of repairing of the road but no damage was done to the forest land nor to the trees standing on the forest land and in that case further statement was made that the land over which the road had been constructed had already been acquired by the Government; which statement in absence of its denials can be accepted to be correct and under such situation in that case, no offence was made out under the Forest Act; the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court quashed the entire criminal proceedings.

7. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners next relies upon the judgment of another Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ramjee Mehta Vs. The State of Jharkhand passed in Cr.M.P. No.35 of 2014 dated 26.04.2023 and submits that in the facts of that case, a Co- ordinate Bench of this Court found that on the basis of notification dated 08.12.1953, the complaint in that case was filed stating that the petitioner was excavating the stones from the protected forest area and Section 29 of the India Forest Act read with Section 30(b) of the Act provides that notification shall remain in force for 30 years and as admittedly, there was no notification under of the Act and as the word ‘cognizance’ was filled up in blank space, which showed non-application of