JUDGMENT 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.27 of 2001 including the order dated 16.4.2001 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 the petitioner, a contractor when was found repairing road passing through Hisra protected forest, an offence report was submitted. Subsequently upon submission of the prosecution report, cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 33(1) of the Indian Forest Act has been taken against the petitioner. 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 passing through the said Hisra protected forest and while the road was being repaired, no damage as per the case of the prosecution of the forest land or even the trees was done and in that event, the petitioner cannot be said to have committed any offence under the Forest Act, particularly when the land over which the road had been constructed has been acquired by the State and for that even the compensation amount was paid, though, as per claim made by the Forest Department, only part payment has been made but the fact remains that the land over which the road was existing had been acquired which would be evident from Annexures 3 and 3/1. 5. Learned counsel further submits that the Forest Department has claimed the land as that of the protected forest by virtue of notification no. C/PF-10154/52/151-R issued on 9.1.1953 but the same lost its force after expiry of 30 years and thereafter no further notification had been issued and if it would have been issued, reference of that would have been there in the prosecution report. Since no reference is there of any notification issued after 30 years, it would be deemed that no further notification in terms of Section 30 has been issued. In that view of the matter also the prosecution is quite bad. 6. Since no reference is there of any notification issued after 30 years, it would be deemed that no further notification in terms of Section 30 has been issued. In that view of the matter also the prosecution is quite bad. 6. Thus, it was submission that under the circumstance, it would not be in the interest of justice to allow the petitioner to face rigor of the trial and hence, entire criminal prosecution is fit to be quashed. 7. No counter affidavit has been filed. However, taking the case of the prosecution as has been made in the prosecution report and also the offence report, it does appear that the petitioner, a contractor had been entrusted to repair Chainpur-Ramkunda road and while repairing was 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. 8. 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 1953 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. 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. 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 [2003(2) J,C.R 525 (Jhr)]. 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.27 of 2001 including the order taking cognizance of the offence dated 16.4.2001 is hereby quashed. 16. In the result, this application is allowed.