Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2178 (RAJ)

Rajkishore v. State of Rajasthan

2014-12-19

M.N.BHANDARI

body2014
ORDER By this Criminal Misc. Petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 23rd January, 2014 so as the order dated 21st July, 2014. Learned counsel submits that a case was registered for offence under Section 379 and 411 of IPC apart from Section 29/51 of Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 (for short “Act of 1972”). The allegation against the petitioner was for carrying “Bajri” from prohibited area of Chambal river i.e. “Chambal Gharial Century.” The petitioner made an application for release of Tractor, however, it was dismissed by learned Judicial Magistrate in reference to Section 52 of Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953 (for short “the Act of 1953”). The case for offence under the Act of 1953 was not registered, thus reference of provisions of the Act of 1953 was erroneous to dismiss the application. The petitioner then preferred a revision petition but it was also dismissed. The impugned order deserves to be set aside with the direction for release of Tractor on “Supurdagi” as it is not for offence under Rajasthan Forest Act 1953. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further made reference of subsequent order dated 29th November, 2014 framing charges against the petitioner for offence under Section 29/51 of the Act of 1972 apart from Section 379/411 of IPC. Therein also, the charge is not framed for offence under the Act of 1953. A prayer is accordingly made to quash the order and to release the Tractor. Learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, opposed this petition. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel and scanned the matter carefully. The perusal of FIR reveals registration of case for offence under Section 379/411 of IPC along with Section 29/51 of the Act of 1972. The allegation against the petitioner was for carrying “Bajri” from the prohibited area of Chambal river. The dismissal of the application for release of Tractor on “Supurdagi” is, however, in reference to Section 52 of the Act of 1953. The reference of the aforesaid provision was given by learned Judicial Magistrate in ignorance of the FIR having no allegation for commissioning of offence under the Act of 1953. The revision petition preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed but it is not in reference to the Act of 1953 but considering the offence under the Act of 1972. The reference of the aforesaid provision was given by learned Judicial Magistrate in ignorance of the FIR having no allegation for commissioning of offence under the Act of 1953. The revision petition preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed but it is not in reference to the Act of 1953 but considering the offence under the Act of 1972. In view of above, so far as the Revisional Court's order is concerned, it is in reference to the provision, for which, offence said to have been committed by the petitioner. After going through the order passed by the Revisional Court, I do not find any error therein so as to cause interference therein. The vehicle was involved in carrying “Bajri” from Chambal river despite prohibition and declaration of aforesaid area to be “Chambal Gharial Century.” The excavation of “Bajri” from the prohibited area is nothing but a threat to the wild life given protection. In view of above, any vehicle, found involved in the activities of getting “Bajri” is threatening to the wild life. It is not entitled for release. It is seen by this Court that many such cases are coming before this Court. Large number of persons and vehicles are involved in illegal excavation of “Bajri” from the prohibited area. They are violating the provisions and thereby committing offences under the Act of 1972. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered similar cases where commission of offence was not under the Act of 1972 but under the Indian Forest Act but taking it to be threat to the environment, release was ordered to be in rare to rarest cases and if, at all, release is allowed, it should be on bank guarantee. The judgment aforesaid was given in the case of State of Karnataka vs. K. Krishnan, (2000) 7 SCC 80 . It is again a fact that in the case of Deepak Kumar vs. State of Haryana, (2012) 4 SCC 629 , a restrain order has been passed regarding illegal excavation of “Bajri” and the State Governments were given directions not to allow excavation of “Bajri” other than through lease holder and that too from demarcated area. The Government of Rajasthan has already amended Rule 63 for that purpose and matter is under process for issuance of lease. The Government of Rajasthan has already amended Rule 63 for that purpose and matter is under process for issuance of lease. The direction in the case of Deepak Kumar (supra) were given by the Hon'ble Apex Court finding excavation of “Bajri” in unplanned manner becoming threat to the environment. It is after finding that excavation of “Bajri” without identified area is causing nothing but damage to the river. The unplanned excavation causes digging in the river, which ultimately blocks or obstruct free flow of water in the rainy season. Aforesaid shows not only sanctity to the environment but to give protection to it. It is not unknown that scarcity of water is now a threat to the society and the Hon'ble Apex Court has shown concern. Thus, looking to all these reasons, I am of the opinion that release of vehicle involved in excavation of “Bajri” in an illegal manner, that too, from the prohibited area, should be in rare cases and if release is made then it should be by imposing appropriate conditions. In view of above, I do not find any reason to cause interference in the impugned order, hence, this Criminal Misc. Petition stands dismissed.