Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

BRIJ LAL KOL & OTHERS versus STATE OF U.P. & ANOTHER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Brij Lal Kol & Others v. State Of U.P. & Another - APPLICATION U/s 482 No. 12650 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 10486 (7 June 2007)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court no.50

Criminal  Misc.  Application No. 12650 of 2007

Brij Lal Kol and others      Vs.  State of U.P. and others

Hon'ble R.K.Rastogi,J

This is an  application under section 482 Cr. P.C.  for   quashing  

the  proceedings of  Case No. 561/IX of 2006, State of U.P.  Vs. Brij Lal Kol  &  others  under sections 5 and 26 of  the Indian Forests Act and Sections 27,29,50 and 51 of Wild Life (Protection)  Act, 1972 ( for short  the Act).

I have heard the learned counsel for the applicants as well as the  learned A.G.A. for the State at the admission stage and I am deciding  it  on merits.

The facts relevant for disposal of this application are that  on 11.5.05 Sri Surya Lal, Van Rakshak Devari Veet, Range Manikpur  District Chitrakoot  submitted a report that  on 11.5.05 when he was on  patrol  duty  along with  his companions named  Sri Sadanand  yadav, ( Van Jeev  Rakshak) and   Sri Sahdeo Kumar Gupta ( Van Jeev Rakshak) of  Devari   Veet , they found that  yellow soil was being dug   by   some persons and  the persons  who were digging  soil  ran  away on seeing them. However,  they had identified  those culprits  as  Brij Lal,  Manbharan, Ram Bhan, Lala , Munnu , Raja Ram , Munna son of  Faguna, Munna son of Veran, Chunkawan and  Ram Asrey . The  yellow soil  dug on the spot  and  the instruments  used in digging  it like   Gainta, spade, Basket  etc.  were  recovered  there.  The dug yellow soil  was collected in  40  bags . Thereafter  the  report was  sent to  Vanya  Jeev  Pratipalak, Karvi ,  District  Chitrakoot .  The Vanya Jeev Pratipalak   thereafter  forwarded the  report to  the Van Kshetradhikari, Manikpur range   who asked  Sri Ram Sanwarey  to investigate the matter  and to submit a report. The report was submitted by  the Section Officer, Manikpur  range   and  on that report  an order was passed  for lodging a complaint against the accused persons  in the  competent court .Thereafter a complaint  was filed  in the court of C.J.M. Chitrakoot   which was signed  by  Prabhagiya  Van Adhikari,  Kaimur Vanya Jeev Van Prabhag, Mirzapur, Van  Kshetradhikari Vanya Jeev,  Range Manikpur, Chitrakoot, and  Vanya Jeev Pratipalak, Ranipur Vanya Jeev Vihar , Chitrakoot. On that complaint  learned Magistrate  took cognizance  on 22.3.06. The present  application  under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed  to quash the aforesaid proceedings.

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted before me that  under section  55 of  the  Wild Life ( Protection ) Act,1972, the   Court   can take cognizance  of  any offence  under the above Act  only on a  complaint  and not on the  basis of police report.  The contention of the applicants is that in the present case  a police report was submitted .  The above contention is erroneous . In the present case  neither F.I.R. was lodged  with the police   nor police  investigated   the matter, nor any charge sheet has been  filed. On the other hand  , in the present case ,  an employee of the forest department  submitted  a report  against the accused persons  to   an Officer of  his  own department  and  then an inquiry was   conducted  by   another   employee of the department,  and then a complaint was  filed  against the accused persons.  A photo copy of the complaint  has been filed   with  this application  as Annexure 4 and on its  top,  it has been  titled as  'complaint'. It has been signed  by  Prabhagiya Van Adhikari, Vanya Jeev Pratipalak and    Van Kshetradhikari. Thus,  there has been no  violation of  the provisions of  the said  Act  and the provisions of the Act have been complied with .

Learned counsel for the applicants  further submitted that  in  complaint case the Magistrate  has to  record  statement of the complainant under section 200 Cr.P.C.  but  no such statement has been recorded  and cognizance  has been taken as a police case.  There  is no force in  the above contention also.

It has been  clearly provided in  Clause  (a) of the proviso  to   Section  200  Cr.P.C.  that  the Magistrate need  not examine the  complainant and the witnesses under section  200 Cr.P.C.   when    the complaint is made in writing by  a public  servant  acting   or purporting  to act in the discharge of his official duties or a  Court  has made  the complaint.

Learned counsel for the applicant  pointed out  that the Magistrate has written  in the order   that  "Aaj  Yah Chalani  Van Vibhag Range  Manikpur Se  Abhiyuktagan Brijlal  Aadi  Ke Virudha Antargat Dhara  Van Adhiniyam 1927 Ki Dhara 5  Va 26 Van Jeev Sa. Adhiniyam Men Prapt Hui. Sangyan Liya Gaya."  He further submitted that the Magistrate  has not  stated  in the order  dated 22.3.06 that he  had taken   cognizance  of a complaint  but has used  the word  'Chalani' report. There is no  force  in this contention also because  the complaint dated 22.3.06 is not a police  Challani  report but it is a complaint, and merely   its description   as "Challani  Van Vibhag range Manikpur"  in the order  would not  change  its nature.

It was further submitted  by the learned counsel for the applicants that  the accused are  residents of   District Rewa ( M.P) and  they could not come   to Chitrakoot  to commit  the theft of  yellow  soil and  it is also  not clear  as to   how  employees of  the   forest department  recognised  them. These  are the questions  of facts  and the accused may raise    these points    in defence  at the proper stage.  

Any  how, no good  ground   for quashing the proceedings of the  case has been made out .

In the last , learned  counsel for the applicants  submitted that  one month's time  may be granted to the accused  to appear  before the court concerned .  In  view of this statement , I order that with a view to enable the   applicants  to appear before the    C.J.M. Chitrakoot within one month  from today , no coercive process  shall be executed  against them  during  this period .  After  putting  in  appearance  if  they apply for bail,  the  C.J.M  may consider and decide the same expeditiously.

With the above observations and directions the  application  under section 482 Cr.P.C.   is  disposed of.

7.6.07

MLK


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.