Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 140 (PAT)

Jai Narayan Sharma v. State Of Bihar

2009-01-30

ABHIJIT SINHA

body2009
JUDGEMENT 1. The sole accused of G.O. Case No. 308 of 2006, TR No. 1856 of 2007 has prayed for the quashing of the order dated 5.9.2006 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Samastipur, whereby he has taken cognizance of offences under Sections 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14 and 15 of the Bihar Saw Mills (Regulation) Act, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as "the Regulation Act") and Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 . 2. The Range Officer, Samastipur, submitted a written report dated 7.9.2001 signed on 31.12.2001 which was forwarded to the Divisional Forest Officer, Begusarai, stating therein that on 6.9.2001 he came to know that an illegal Saw Mill located at Sari was in operation whereupon he alongwith armed forces went there and found the said Saw Mill in running condition and it was learnt that the said Saw Mill belonged to one Jai Narain Sharma. It was further alleged that the said Saw Mill owner did not possess any licence to operate the same and had thereby committed the offences under Sections 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14 and 15 of the Regulation Act and Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act and thereupon the Range Officer seized the said Saw Mill alongwith some illegal woods stored therein. 3. Assailing the impugned order, it has been submitted that the cognizance has been taken beyond the period of limitation and is, therefore, an abuse of the process of the Court. In this connection, it was sought to be submitted that in a similar situation a Bench of this Court vide order dated 4.12.2007 passed in Criminal Misc. No. 42216 of 2007 (Ram Bilas Thakur v. The State of Bihar) had quashed the entire proceedings. 4. Section 14 of the Regulation Act is the only penal provision providing penalty of an imprisonment for one year and also of fine. Similarly, Section 42 of the Indian Forest Act provides for penalty for violation of the provision of the Indian Forest Act which is two years imprisonment. In the instant case the complaint petition was filed on 7.9.2007 in respect of search and seizure made on 6.9.2001. Similarly, Section 42 of the Indian Forest Act provides for penalty for violation of the provision of the Indian Forest Act which is two years imprisonment. In the instant case the complaint petition was filed on 7.9.2007 in respect of search and seizure made on 6.9.2001. However, cognizance could not be taken till 5.9.2006 which was beyond the period of three years limitation prescribed for such offences since the sentence for the offences whereunder the petitioner had been summoned was two years imprisonment as the maximum. 5. To my mind, the Court acted in an illegal manner in taking cognizance beyond the period of limitation without condoning the delay or even issuing a notice to the accused as to why such delay in taking cognizance be not condoned. 6. In that view of the matter, this application is allowed and the impugned order taking cognizance is hereby quashed being beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 468, Cr PC.