Judgment: Hari Shankar Prasad, J.- This application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Case No. G-352 of 1996 as well as the order dated 18.12.1998 whereby and whereby the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh took cognizance against the petitioners under section 33 of the Indian Forest Act. 2. Facts leading to filing of this case are that O.P. No. 2 lodged a complaint stating therein that some illegal activities were being carried out by the petitioners who happen to be the officials of the Central Coalfields Ltd. in respect of a forest land and as such, the petitioners have committed offence under section 33 of the Indian Forest Act. On the basis of this complaint, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh took cognizance vide order dated 18.12.1998 against the petitioners under section 33 of the Indian Forest Act. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh without applying his judicial mind took cognizance by order dated 18.12.1998. It is further submitted that M/s Central Coalfields Ltd. is a Government Company within the meaning of Section 617 of the Companies Act and this company owns various coalfields and project including Rajrappa Project. The Rajrappa open cast project was initially started by the erstwhile National Coal Development Corporation in the year 1963 with U.S.A. collaboration to work with open cast. and underground mining to produce 1.5 million tonnes of coal from open cast and 0.24 million tonnes of coal from underground mining per year and the project has nomenclature of Ramgarh Project for sup-plying coal to steel plants. It is further submitted that the land for mining and other ancillary activities was acquired in phase wise manner right from 1962 and onwards under the provisions of the Coal Bearing Area (Acquisition & Development) Act, 1957 and as the land in question was acquired under the aforesaid Act, no lease as envisaged under the provisions of Mines and Minerals (Regulation & Development) Act, 1957, was granted to the Central Coalfields Ltd. by the State Government for allowing the company to do mining activities, nor there is any such order passed by the State Government allowing the petitioners to do mining work. Since the land in question has been acquired under the aforesaid Act, the Central Coalfields Ltd. is not liable to pay any compensation either under the provisions of Indian Forest Act or the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. But whenever such demand was raised, the Central Coalfields Ltd. was paying the same and that compensation was being paid under the provisions of Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957. It is further submitted that the lands of village Buchungdih, Goura Bara, Koihara and Kumardhama were acquired under the provisions of Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition & Development) Act, 1957 much before 25.10.1980. 4. It was further submitted that the Parliament enacted the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 which received assent of the President on 8th June, 1957 and was published in the official Gazette on 10th June, 1957. Under the aforesaid Act which was established in the economic interest of India, greater public control over the coal mining industry and its development by providing for the acquisition by the State of unworked land containing or likely to contain coal deposits or of rights in or over such land for extinguishment or modification of such rights accruing by virtue of any agreement lease, licence or otherwise and for matters connected therewith were provided and under the provisions of the Act, the land not even belonging to the State Government could be acquired. 5. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners referred to various provisions of the Act such as Sections 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 17, 18, 18(A) and 23 the aforesaid Act and submitted that the Government enacted Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, by which a bar has been imposed only on the State Government or other authorities to make except with the prior approval of the Central Government which says that the State Government or other authorities cannot pass any order or give direction without prior approval of the Central Government for using any forest or any portion thereof for any non-forest land purpose and in view of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957, there is no lease nor the State Government was required to pass any order, so Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 is not at all applicable in the present case and in' view of the fact that the land has been acquired for the purpose of mining activities, the provisions of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 is not at all applicable. It was further submitted that the Central Government has further made provisions that Central Government had been issuing guidelines from time to time and in one of such guidelines, it has specifically been mentioned that in respect of the mining operation being carried out on forest lands leased before the commencement of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and during the continuance of the lease period, the approval of the Central Government under section 2 of the said Act is not required. 6. In course of submission, learned counsel for the petitioners referred to the provisions of Indian Forest Act, 1927 and submitted that there are three types of forest i.e. reserved forest, protected forest and village forest. There is also other type of forest known as private forest. It was also submitted that under section 3 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, some provisions have been made by which the State Government may constitute any forest land or waste land which is property of the Government or over which the Government has proprietary rights or to the whole or any part of the forest produce of which the Government is entitled, a reserved forest in the manner provided. Learned counsel for the petitioner also dealt with several provisions of Indian Forest Act and ultimately submitted that under section 30 of the Indian Forest Act, State Government has been empowered to issue notification reserving trees in a protected forest. Under Sub-section (c) of the said Act, the State Government may issue notification prohibiting the breaking up or clearing for activities or any other purpose of any land in such forest, but no such notification has been issued and in contravention to the provisions of Section 30 of the Act, Section 3 of the Indian Forest Act provides for penalties and if there is no notification issued under section 30 of the Act, there cannot be any prosecution for imposing penalty under section 33 of the said Act. Learned counsel further submitted that private forest are governed by the provisions of the Bihar Private Forests Act, 1947 and under the provisions of said Act, the State Government has to issue notification declaring any forest land as private forest and so far as the present case is concerned, there is no such notification declaring it as a private forest land. 7. On the other hand, counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of opposite party no. 2 and rejoinder to the counter-affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the petitioners. From perusal of counter-affidavit, it appears that there is no material on record or any points of invoking jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is further stated in the counter-affidavit that prima facie case is made out and the learned court below has not committed any illegality or irregularity in taking cognizance. It is further stated in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 namely, S.K. Lal and S.C. Kapoor had moved the court in another case which ended in dismissal and order was in favour of the State Government including the Forest Department. It is further stated in the counter-affidavit that any forest land which is duly notified as protected forest under the provisions of Indian Forest Act, 1927, have been acquired under the provisions of Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957 and-private owners were given permission by the Forest Department for the mining purposes of the lands duly constituted under the provisions of B.P.F. Act. It is further stated in the counter-affidavit that it is wrong to say that the forest lands were broken or damaged by the private owners. It is asserted that forest lands were never acquired under the provisions of Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957. It is further stated that the petitioners ought to pay compensation, as per provisions of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 as well as under Indian Forest Act, 1927 and are liable to take approval in terms of the order of the Apex Court in Writ Petition No. 202 of 1995. From the counter-affidavit, it also appears that several statements of the petitioners have been asserted to be false. It is further stated in the counter-affidavit that Bihar Private Forests Act, 1947 has no application in the present case since the same has been repealed and after enactment of Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1947, all the lands including the forest land duly constituted as protected land under Bihar Private Forests Act, have been vested in the State of Bihar. 8. Having heard learned Gounsel for the parties and on perusal of provisions of the Acts referred to in the instant case, I am of the view that the pleas which has been raised on behalf of the petitioner, can properly be appreciated before the learned court below as there are some facts which can better be dealt with by the learned court below in course of trial. In that view of the matter, this application is dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to raise all the points which they have raised before this court, before the learned court below at the appropriate stage and the learned court below will proceed in the case in accordance with law.