ORDER : Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. In this application, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings in connection with G.O.C. Case No. 02 of 2011 including the order dated 2.7.2012, passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Simdega, by which cognizance has been taken for the offence punishable under section 33 of the Indian Forest Act. 2. The prosecution report discloses that when the informant and others were on patrolling duty on 22.03.2011 at Alingur Protected Forest, it was detected that some trees were being cut under the instruction of the officials of Jyoti Construction for the purpose of electrification work. Some sal stick (Bali) and firewood were seized and the prosecution report was submitted. On 24.03.2011, the informant along with other forest officials inspected the place of occurrence and came to a finding that some trees have been cut down from the protected forest area in Bolwa P.S. No. 62, plot no. 992 and a map was also duly prepared. On submission of the prosecution report, cognizance was taken by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Simdega on 2.7.2012 for the offence punishable under section 33 of the Indian Forest Act. 3. Heard Mr. Zaid Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Rajesh Shankar, learned G.A. for the State. 4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners were employees of Jyoti Construction, who were involved in carrying out electrification work. It has further been submitted that on 5.12.1955, a notification had been issued showing the area to be protected forest and in absence of any further notification after 30 years in terms of section 30 of the Indian Forest Act, the area in question does not retain the characteristics of a protected forest. It has been submitted that the seizure list does not bear the signature of independent witnesses and even consent of village Mukhiya is absent, which is also one of the primary requirements in order to institute a case. It has also been submitted that the seizure was made by a forest officer, who was not competent to conduct search and seizure in view of section 52-D of the Indian Forest Act, which envisages a forest official not below the rank of a Range Officer to seize any property. It has, therefore, been prayed that the entire criminal proceeding as against the petitioners be quashed and set aside. 5. It has, therefore, been prayed that the entire criminal proceeding as against the petitioners be quashed and set aside. 5. Mr. Rajesh Shankar, learned G.A., has submitted that Section 29 defines a protected forest and any notification issued under section 29 of the Indian Forest Act declaring a forest to be protected, the same continues to remain in operation till it is de notified. It has been submitted that Section 30-B is on an altogether different context and the period of 30 years cannot be construed to mean that the protected forest ceases to be one after expiry of 30 years. Learned Government Advocate has therefore submitted that since the petitioners were carrying on electrification work by felling trees, a forest offence has been committed and therefore the petitioners are liable to be prosecuted for the same. 6. In order to consider the rival submissions, it would be necessary to refer to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State. Although arguments have been advanced with respect to portion of the land where the alleged felling of trees were being carried out but from the counter-affidavit it appears that specific averments have been made with respect to the fact that plot no. 1430 of village-Suadongar, P.S. No. 56, P.S. Bolwa has not been notified by the Government as a protected forest. Section 52 of the Indian Forest Act deals with seizure of property liable to confiscation and Section 52-D (Bihar Amendment) specifically envisages that any forest officer not below the rank of Range Officer of Forest if he has a reasonable ground to believe that any offence has been committed in contravention of the Act can conduct, search and seize any article used in committing such offence. In the counter-affidavit, seizure list has been annexed from which it appears that products were seized by the Range Forest Officer, Bolwa Forest Range and therefore the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners with respect to Section 52(D) of the Indian Forest Act gets negated. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also referred to clause 10.16, which depicts procedure for enquiry into forest offence cases and has referred to sub-clause (iii) where a certificate from Mukhiya is to be obtained in all cases of seizure of forest produce in a notified forest. Clause 10.16 speaks merely about the procedure to be followed in management and working of the forest. Clause 10.16 speaks merely about the procedure to be followed in management and working of the forest. The said provision is not a mandatory provision and is merely a directive to the forest officials to take a report from the Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat with respect to the correctness of the charges. If no such certificate is taken from the concerned Mukhiya in terms of the said clause, the entire prosecution case would not fail. Guidelines have been laid down to ensure that the false cases are not instituted and official in the rank of a Range Forest Officer and above have been authorised to conduct search and seizure in terms of section 52(D) of the Indian Forest Act and therefore the plea made by the learned counsel for the petitioners with respect to clause 10.16 of the guidelines cannot be said to be a mandatory provision, the violation of which would lead to quashment of the entire proceedings. 7. Reverting back to the counter-affidavit filed by the State, there appears to be an apparent contradiction in the offence report as well as the averments made in the counter-affidavit. The offence report suggests that the place where the occurrence had taken place is a protected forest whereas the counter-affidavit suggests otherwise. Whether the forest area is a protected forest or not in view of the contradictions referred to above cannot be decided by this Court as the same is the subject matter of a trial. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to various judgments in support of his case. In the case of Wazir Mohammad & Anr. v. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) reported in 2013 (1) JBCJ 8 , it was held that the notification issued in the year 1955 notifying the forest to be a protected forest had lost its force after 30 years and therefore the conviction of the petitioners under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 9. 9. In the case of M. Fasiuddin v. State of Jharkhand reported in [2013] 4 East CrC 112, this Court while relying on the judgment of Patna High Court in the case of Janu Khan v. State of Bihar, reported in AIR 1960 (Pat) 213 had held that in absence of any notification under section 30 of the Indian Forest Act declaring any trees or class of trees in a protected forest to be reserved the accused cannot be prosecuted even on the allegation of felling of trees. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also referred to the case of Arun Kumar Agarwal v. State of Jharkhand, reported in 2004 (2) JCR 450 (Jhr), wherein it was held that if the petitioners were carrying on widening and strengthening of the road and if some damages are done to the newly growing plants the same will not constitute a forest offence. 11. The map, which has been annexed in the counter-affidavit, shows the area in village Sahadongur P.S. No. 56, P.S. Bolwa has been declared to be a protected forest vide Government Notification No. 3740 dated 5.12.1955. Once a forest has been declared to be a protected forest in terms of section 29 of the Indian Forest Act, it continues to be remain a protected forest till it is de-notified by the State Government. 12. Section 30 of the Indian Forest Act gives power to the State Government to notify declaring any trees or class of trees to be reserved from a date fixed by the notification. It cannot be deciphered either from the offence report or from the counter-affidavit as to whether the area, in which trees were alleged to have been felled at the instance of the petitioners were reserved by a notification or not. Such matter cannot be decided by this Court in a proceeding under section 482 Cr.P.C. as the Court is not empowered to conduct a roving enquiry or weigh the evidences to come to a conclusion. 13. Accordingly, there being no merit in this application, same is hereby dismissed. Application dismissed.