The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for legal evidence to support charges and the relevance of provisions of the acts to the case.

POONAM SRIVASTAVA, J.

( 1 ) HEARD Sri G. S. Chaturvedi senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Samit gopal, Advocate for the applicants and the learned A. G. A. for the opposite party No. 1.

( 2 ) NOTICE to opposite party No. 2 was served but no counter affidavit has been filed and no counsel has put his appearance on behalf of contesting opposite party.

( 3 ) PRAYER in this application is for quashing of the charge sheet annexure No. 2 and the order dated 15-3-1999 passed by a. C. J. M. Mahroni. Facts of the case is, mining lease located at Pardhankuan in Pargana sanpur District Jhansi (now Lalitpur) Tehsil mahroni bearing cadestral survey No. 760 having an area 47. 24 acres was sanctioned to Ishwar Industries Ltd. for a period of 20 years with effect from 1-5-1964 for carrying out mining work. Renewal of lease was applied on 11-4-1983, which was rejected by the State Government, order of rejection was challenged before Delhi High Court and interim order was passed in favour of leasee on 8th August, 1988 by a Division Bench in pursuant thereof the applicants are continuing with the mining work. F. I. R. was lodged against the applicants at case No. 140 of 1998 under Section 379 I. P. C. , Section 26 forest (Conservation Act) 1980 and Section 52/53 of the Mines Act 1952. Writ petition no. 3862 of 1998 was filed in this Court for quashing of FIR and stay of arrest of the applicants, a Division Bench of this Court, vide order dated 7-9-1998 granted time to the State Government and the S. S. P. to file counter affidavit and also stayed the arrest of the applicants. Before passing interim order, the Court had perused lease deed and it was clearly stated in the order that the petitioners (applicants) are permitted to use the area for carrying out mining operation and were permited to cut down the trees etc. for which the applicants were entitled to pay compensation specified by the Collector of the District as per the terms of lease deed. The said compensation will be treated as an implied consent, copy of the interim order has been annexed as annexure No. 4 to the affidavit. It has been stated in paragraph 5 of the affidavit that State has not filed any counter affidavit till date which is not disputed. Charge sheet has been filed against the applicants and the C. J. M. summoned the applicants vide order dated 15-3-1999, which is sought to be quashed.

( 4 ) SPECIFIC allegation against the applicants is that there were 2000 trees on the land, which have been cut down illegally by the applicants and thereby an offence under section 379 I. P. C. is constituted against the applicants.

( 5 ) FIGURE of 2000 trees was arived on the basis of an approximate assessment on inspection of an area measuring 20 feet x 20 feet and the number of trees standing on the said area. There were 20 trees as such on the basis of said ratio in an area of 200 meters x 50 meters, which was excavated, there ought to have been 2000 trees but there are only 60 trees. Conclusion has been arrived at by the complainant that 1940 trees must have been destroyed by the applicants consequently offence was committed. Statement of Ram Sundar Yadav, complainant has also been annexed as annexure no. 10, which is only repetition of the fir Annexure No. 6 to the affidavit is a copy of the letter dated 18-3-1998 vide letter No. 1311/18-11-98-946/87 from Sri Rajbeer singh Special Secretary, State of U. P. wherein it has specifically been stated that the land given for mining purpose does not fall within the Forest Conservation Act 1980, xerox copy of the Khasar for Fasli years 1401, 1403, 1404 are annexed as annexure no. 7, 8 and 9 and the column which mentions number of big trees in the area shown in the Khasara is nil. Argument advanced on behalf of the applicant is that since the said evidence have not been controverted by the learned A. G. A. neither in the present application nor in the writ petition, which is still pending, there appears to be no prima facie evidence to constit

Click Here to Read the rest of this document