Order By Court: Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State. 2. This application has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding of C.F.Case No.29 of 2000 including the order dated 19.3.2001 whereby and whereunder the then Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palamau at Daltonganj took cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 33(1) of the Indian Forest Act. 3. It is a case of the prosecution that in course of patrolling, the forest guard found some persons picking up stone lying in the forest area and the stone were being collected by the petitioner, a contractor, for using it for making repair of the road passing through the forest. At the same time, it has also been alleged that for the purpose of repairing road, Moram was taken out for the forest area for repairing the road. Subsequently, upon submission of the prosecution report, cognizance of the offences punishable was taken which is under challenge. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, a contractor had been entrusted work by the Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department to repair Chainpur-Ramkunda road, plot no.3, passing through the said Kuti protected forest but no offence is made out as the petitioner has been doing public work under the order of the Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department and in that event, even if some damage are caused to the forest land, it will not amount to an offence under the Indian Forest in view of the decision rendered in a case of Arun Kumar Agrawal vs. State of Jharkhand [ 2004 (2) J.C.R 450 (Jhr)] others [2003(2) J.C.R 525 (Jhr)]. 5. It was further submitted that the Forest Department has claimed the land as that of the protected forest of plot no.3 by virtue of notification no.C/PF/17042/55-2688 dated 2.9.1955 but it lost its force after expiry of 30 years and thereafter no further notification had been issued and as such, the land cannot be taken as that of the forest land. 6. Learned counsel in support of his submission has referred to a decision rendered in a case of Jagdish Mehta vs. State of Jharkhand and others [2003(2) J.C.R 525 (Jhr)] . 7. Thus, it was submitted that the entire criminal proceeding is fit to be quashed. 8. 6. Learned counsel in support of his submission has referred to a decision rendered in a case of Jagdish Mehta vs. State of Jharkhand and others [2003(2) J.C.R 525 (Jhr)] . 7. Thus, it was submitted that the entire criminal proceeding is fit to be quashed. 8. No counter affidavit has been filed in this case but from perusal of the offence and prosecution report, it does appear that the petitioner, a contractor was entrusted to repair Chainpur-Ramkunda road and while repairing work being done, a case was lodged and in course of repairing the road, damage was done to the forest land or even the trees on the forest land. Further statement has been made that the land over which the road had been constructed had already been acquired by the Government. Under this situation, no offence is made out under the Forest Act when the petitioner under the order of the Executive Engineer, Road Construction Department was constructing the road over the land which had already been acquired by the State and it no longer remains the land of the forest. 9. Further it does appear from the prosecution report that the prosecution has been laying claim the land as that of the forest land by virtue of notification issued in the year 1955 but in view of the provision as contained in Section 30 of the Forest Act, it lost its force after expiry of 30 years. In this case one needs to take provision as contained in Section 30(b) of the Indian Forest Act which reads as under: 30. Power to issue notification reserving trees, etc.-The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, - (a) …………………………………… (b) declare that any portion of such forest specified in the notification shall be closed for such term, not exceeding thirty years, as the State Government thinks fit, and that the rights of private persons, if any, over such portion shall be suspended during such term provided that the remainder of such forest be sufficient, and in a locality reasonably convenient, for the due exercise of the rights suspended in the portion so closed; or (c)………………………………… 10. It is evidently clear from perusal of the aforesaid provision that any declaration made by the Government for the land to be a protected forest shall be expired after 30 years from the date of issuance of the notification. 11. It is evidently clear from perusal of the aforesaid provision that any declaration made by the Government for the land to be a protected forest shall be expired after 30 years from the date of issuance of the notification. 11. Similar question fell for consideration before the Patna High Court in a case of Janu Khan and others vs. State of Bihar ( AIR 1960 Pat 213 ) wherein His Lordship observed as follows: “ Even if I take into consideration the notification referred to above, which is dated the 29th December, 1952, there had to be another notification under Section 30 of the Indian Forest Act, protected forest to be reserved from a date fixed in that notification.” 12. Similar view was taken by this Court in a case of Jagdish Mehta vs. State of Jharkhand and others (supra). 13. Under this situation, one is constrained to hold that the land through which Chainpur-Ramkunda road passing through Kuti protected forest was never the forest land on account of the fact that no further notification was there, in absence of any notification and on account of the fact that the land had already been acquired by the Government. 14. Under this situation, no offence can be said to have been committed by the petitioner, even if the petitioner indulged himself in repairing the road in question. 15. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding of C.F.Case No.29 of 2000 including the order taking cognizance of the offence dated 19.3.2001 is hereby quashed. 16. In the result, this application is allowed.