Shashi Bhartia v. The State of Bihar
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Misc. No. 25348 of 1999 Shashi Bhartia ... … Petitioner Versus The State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) & others … … Opp. Parties ----- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.R. PRASAD ----- For the Petitioner For the State
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate : A.P.P. ----- 14/21.08.2013 This application has been filed for quashing of the order dated 17.9.1998 passed by the then Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajmahal in O.C.R. No. 76 of 1998 (T.R. No. 597 of 1999), whereby and whereunder, cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 26, 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act has been taken against the petitioner. Before adverting to the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner, the case of the prosecution needs to be taken notice of. It is the case of the prosecution that on 20.11.1995 the Forester while passing through Kalyani reserved forest saw stone crushing machine of M/s Maruti Mining Corporation, Maharajpur being engaged in crushing stone chips just 25 to 30 yards away towards west and 25 to 30 labourers were engaged in doing mining operation in the stone quarry. The labourers were carrying stones to the stone crusher machine where stone chips were being made over Plot No. 163 part of the reserved forest over part of the land of same plot mining operation was being carried. On such allegation, offence report was submitted and upon filing of the offence report, cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 26, 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act and also under Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act was taken against the petitioner, which order is under challenge. Entire criminal proceeding including order taking cognizance is being sought to be quashed on the ground that on the said allegation a confiscation proceeding had been initiated, wherein the prosecuting agency failed to establish that any crusher machine had been installed over the plot in question or any mining operation was being done over there and in that event, confiscation proceeding has been dropped and even the materials, which had been seized at the time of alleged occurrence, have been released in favour of the petitioner. Thus, it was submitted by Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, that there remains nothing for the prosecution to prosecute the petitioner in this case on the same charge. Therefore, it would be abuse of the process of court, if the petitioner is allowed to face rigor of trial. Learned counsel in support of his submission has referred to a decision rendered in a case of Satya Narayan Kejriwal Vs. State of Bihar {1989 (0) AIJ-PT 1702006} to put forth his point that upon exoneration in a confiscation proceeding, one would not be liable to be prosecuted in a criminal trial. It is true that a confiscation proceeding, which was initiated on the same allegation upon which case was lodged, has been dropped but on perusal of the order, I do find that the confiscation proceeding was dropped for the reason that the prosecuting agency failed to produce any evidence except the seizure list, whereas the petitioner did produce certain documents showing the closure of stone quarry machine. In that event, confiscation proceeding seems to have been dropped. The question does arise as to whether dropping of a confiscation proceeding will have any bearing upon a criminal case? In order to have answer I may travel a slightly out of way but certainly not out of context to draw analogy from the principle decided in the cases of criminal offence vis a vis departmental proceeding. If on the same allegation criminal case is lodged and on the same allegation the accused is put to a departmental proceeding, the result of the departmental proceeding may not have any bearing upon a criminal case, as the departmental proceeding is decided on the basis of the material produced before the authority, whereas criminal proceeding is decided on the basis of the material produced before the court. Therefore, it has been well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the exoneration in a departmental proceeding ip so facto cannot be a ground for dropping of a criminal proceeding. In this regard, I may refer to a decision rendered in a case of State (NCT of Delhi) vs. Ajay Kumar Tyagi [(2012) 9 SCC 685]. Logically the same principle can be applied in the instant case. A confiscation proceeding, as noticed above, was dropped taking into account the evidences produced on behalf of the petitioner, whereas the prosecution failed to produce any evidence showing commission of offence, as had been alleged, on the part of the petitioner. It is quite possible that the prosecuting agency may produce the witnesses, even the eye witnesses during trial of the criminal case who had reported about the illegal mining being done by the petitioner. In such event, I am of the view that the finding recorded by the confiscating authority will have no bearing upon the criminal case. So far the decision, referred to on behalf of the petitioner, is concerned, it be recorded that the State before the confiscating authority had conceded that the case, which had been lodged, is not true. On such factual aspect, the confiscating authority did record that there was no need of carrying out either the proceeding of confiscation or a criminal case. In such event, Their Lordships did hold that any trial in view of such finding would be unwarranted. That apart, the court seems to have quashed the proceeding taking into account the other aspect of the matters. It was found that the order taking cognizance is barred by limitation and that some of the offences alleged are not made out. But here in the instant case, as has already been recorded that the confiscation proceeding was dropped for the reason that the prosecution failed to produce any evidence whereas on the other hand, the petitioner did produce evidence in support of his innocence. In that event, the case relied upon on behalf of the petitioner does not seem to be applicable in the facts and circumstances. Keeping in view the allegation, upon which cognizance of the offences has been taken, I do not find any illegality with the order taking cognizance. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in this application. Hence, this application stands dismissed. AKT (R.R. Prasad, J.)