Ecolex Logo
The gateway to
environmental law
Search results » Jurisprudence

Uma Shanker Singh and Ors. v. State of Jharkhand and Anr.

Country/Territory
India
Type of court
National - higher court
Date
Jan 19, 2010
Source
UNEP, InforMEA
Court name
High Court of Jharkhand
Seat of court
Ranchi
Judge
Eqbal, M.Y.
Language
English
Subject
Environment gen., Mineral resources, Forestry
Keyword
Solid waste Food waste Organic waste Waste disposal Offences/penalties Forestry protection measures Enforcement/compliance Forest management/forest conservation Social forestry/community forestry Forest service/forest officers Waste domestic sources Waste non-domestic sources
Abstract
The petitioners in this case through an application under section 482 of the CrPC sought the quashing of the criminal proceedings and the order passed by the Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence under section 33 of the Indian Forest Act and Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. The facts of the case were that the Forest Guard while on patrolling duty found the people of Easter Coalfield Limited (ECL) dumping overburden (soil and stone) removed from the ECL mines and colliery and consequently encroaching the forest land. He submitted a prosecution report which stated that this was being carried out since 1980. On the basis of this report, a case was instituted for offences under the above-mentioned provision against various officers in ECL and the Magistrate also took cognizance of the same. The petitioners raised the contention that since the dumping had been carried out since 1980 cognizance was barred under section 468 of the CrPC. They also argued that in the absence of any notification of protected forest under section 30 of the Indian Forest Act, the provisions under section 33 could not be sustained. In addition, they challenged the Magistrate taking cognizance under section 2 of the Forest Act as being without jurisdiction. The court held that based on the report there admittedly was a case of dumping overburden on the forest land. Beyond this, all the questions raised by the appellants could not be considered in an application under section 484 of the CrPC. The appropriate stage to do so was at the time of framing of charge. It was held that since there was truth in the allegations made in the prosecution report, the criminal proceeding and the order of cognizance cannot be quashed.
Full text
COU-156258.pdf