JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. 1. Heard Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Prabir Kumar Chatterjee, learned counsel for the State. 2. This petition has been filed for quashing the order taking cognizance dated 14.12.2015 as well as entire criminal proceedings in connection with C3 (Forest) No. 1/2014, whereby, cognizance has been taken under Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act, pending in the court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro. 3. On the written report of the Forest Range Officer, Chas, the FIR has been lodged wherein it was alleged that on 05.04.2014 at about 11:00 a.m. he reached the forest Plot No. 7562 under Mauza Chas Forest with colleague forest officials and found that the accused persons enumerated in the offence report were doing worshipping before the pictures of God in the said forest by enclosing the area with tent and bamboo, which was an attempt to grab the forest land. Upon seeing them, the infamous land mafia succeeded in running away. They were chased but could not be caught. Therefore, the enclosures made by them were demolished and seizure was effected as per Section 52 of the Indian Forest Act, the In-charge Forest Guard Sri Jagdish Ram has submitted offence report no. 33 dated 5.4.2014 in this regard. It was also alleged that the informant made verification on 6.4.2014 about the occurrence and found it to be true. He called the accused through the Forest Guard but he did not appear before him. Again on 11.4.2014 through the Forest Guard they were called. The accused persons are infamous land mafia who keep evil eyes for land-grabbing. Earlier also offence reports had been submitted against the accused persons by the Forest Guard. Chas Forest is a notified protected forest whose Notification is no. C/F 10174/58 R dated 24.5.1958. The Chas Forest Plot No. is 7562 and area 15 decimals. It is situated aside the NH, which is of high value and the land mafias intend to grab the land one way or the other. The land mafia intend to sell it to builders at high price. The criminals have overnight cleared 10 decimals land and changed its form. The attempt has been made to grab the land. It is situated aside the NH, which is of high value and the land mafias intend to grab the land one way or the other. The land mafia intend to sell it to builders at high price. The criminals have overnight cleared 10 decimals land and changed its form. The attempt has been made to grab the land. In course of verification it has been found that while running away the mobile phone of the accused fell down which was also seized along with other articles and confiscation has been requested for. It was learnt that the name of father of Naresh Lodha was not Chandi Prasad Lodha, but it was Late Mahavir Prasad Lodha. It was further alleged that the criminals have made serious violation of Section 33 of the India Forest Act, 1927, which is punishable and non-bailable offence. 4. Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioner no. 1 has purchased part of the land vide two registered deeds of sale bearing deed no. 4944 dated 23.06.2008 and deed no. 2412 dated 05.03.2010 from registered power of attorney holder of the vendor namely Suresh Prasad and others. He further submits that in the FIR, it was alleged that the date of occurrence is 05.04.2014. He also submits that in light of Section 29 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, the notification is dated 24.05.1958 and the same remained in force for 30 years. He further submits that the land in question was the subject matter in the Title Suit filed by the owners of the vendor in Title Suit No. 16 of 1993, which was decreed in favour of the vendors from whom the petitioners have purchased the land in question. He also submits that the said judgment was challenged by the Forest Department in Title Appeal No. 38 of 1998 which was dismissed and decree was confirmed. He further submits that Section 33 of the Act provides imprisonment for six months. By way of referring Section 468 Cr.P.C. he submits that the prosecution has filed the case on 10.12.2015 and in light of Section 468 Cr.P.C. it is barred by time. On this ground, he submits that this petition is fit to be allowed. 5. Mr. He further submits that Section 33 of the Act provides imprisonment for six months. By way of referring Section 468 Cr.P.C. he submits that the prosecution has filed the case on 10.12.2015 and in light of Section 468 Cr.P.C. it is barred by time. On this ground, he submits that this petition is fit to be allowed. 5. Mr. Prabir Kumar Chatterjee, learned counsel for the State submits that so far as limitation ground is concerned, the petitioners are required to file a petition before the learned trial court. He further submits that he has not been instructed about any further appeal after dismissal of the said Title Appeal. 6. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, this Court has gone through the materials on the record and finds that in the FIR, the date of occurrence was 05.04.2014, however the case was filed on 10.12.2015. Section 33 speaks that the offences prescribed in (a) to (h) are punishable for imprisonment which may extend to six months or fine may extend to Rs. 500/- or with both. Thus, the prosecution case was required to be filed within aforesaid time. Admittedly the prosecution case was filed on 10.12.2015 i.e. after lapse of more than one year. For the sake of convenience, Section 468 Cr.P.C. is quoted herein-below: “468. Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation: (1) Except as otherwise provided elsewhere in this Code, no Court shall take cognizance of an offence of the category specified in sub-section (2), after the expiry of the period of limitation. (2) The period of limitation shall be: (a) six months, if the offence is punishable with fine only. (b) one year, if offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year. (c) three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years. (3) For the purposes of this section, the period of limitation, in relation to offences which may be tried together, shall be determined with reference to the offence which is punishable with the more severe punishment or, as the case may be, the most severe punishment.” 7. (3) For the purposes of this section, the period of limitation, in relation to offences which may be tried together, shall be determined with reference to the offence which is punishable with the more severe punishment or, as the case may be, the most severe punishment.” 7. Looking into Sub-Section (2)(b) of Section 468 Cr.P.C. in light of the punishment prescribed in the Forest Act, the case was required to be filed within a year and this Section bars of taking cognizance if the case is not instituted within the period prescribed. Admittedly, Title Suit No. 16 of 1993 was filed declaration of right, tile and interest by the petitioners' vendors which was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs and against that judgment, the Department filed Title Appeal No. 38 of 1998, which was also dismissed. Learned counsel for the State fairly submits that he has not been instructed about filing of any further appeal by the Forest Department. In light of Section 29 of the Forest Act, the notification is dated 24.05.1958 and Section 30(b) of the Act provides that such notification shall remain in force for 30 years. Admittedly, no notification is there under Section 30 of the Act. 8. In view of the above discussions, it is apparent that the prosecution is barred under Section 468 Cr.P.C. The aforesaid Title Suit was decided in favour of the petitioners' vendors, which was affirmed in the aforesaid Title Appeal, filed by the Forest Department and the Forest Department has not filed any further appeal after dismissal of the said Title Appeal. Even assuming that notification dated 24.05.1958 issued in light of Section 29 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 is a notification under Section 30 (b) of the Act, then also 30 years' time has already been lapsed. 9. Accordingly, the order taking cognizance dated 14.12.2015 as well as entire criminal proceedings in connection with C3 (Forest) No. 1/2014, pending in the court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro is, hereby, quashed. 10. This petition is, therefore, allowed and disposed of. 11. Interim order dated 03.09.2019 stands vacated.