D.K. Sinha, J.
1. The petitioner has preferred this petition under Section 482, CrPC for quashing the entire criminal proceedings including the order dated 24.8.2004 whereby, and where under the S.D.J.M. Porahat at Chaibasa has taken cognizance of the offence under Section 26(1)(d)(f)(g) of Indian Forest Act, 1927 read with Bihar Amendment Act, 1989 in connection with C/3 Case No. 12/2001 presently pending in the Court of Shri Vishal Srivastava, J.M. 1st Class, Chaibasa.
2. The prosecution story in brief is that on 18.2.2001 Truck No BRV 9596 with another Truck No. BRS 2521 and one Dumper bearing registration No. BR-18-A 7271 were intercepted by the Forest Guard at Railway siding, Sonua Railway Station while the said vehicles were un-loading the stone metals on the reasonable suspicion that the stone metals were carried without authority from the Forest Area. On demand no valid paper was produced by the drivers of the said vehicles about the possession and transportation of the stone metals. In the meantime, the Range Officer of Sonua Range with other forest officials arrived at the siding and arrested the drivers and seized their vehicles.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the occurrence as alleged took place on 18.2.2001 but the prosecution report was forwarded to the Court concerned after three years and cognizance of the offence was taken beyond the period of limitation in contravention of the provisions of Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is not named in the prosecution report. He was neither present at the place of occurrence nor he had any knowledge, about the institution of the case or any prosecution report. Admittedly, he was the registered owner of the Truck No. B.R. S 2521, which was a commercial vehicle used to ply on the road under the control of agent, transporter and its driver. At the relevant time of alleged occurrence, the Truck No. BRS 2521 was plying with valid papers and required documents under the control of its agents.
4. Learned Counsel further submitted that a confiscation proceeding vide Confiscation Case No. 1/2001 was initiated in the year 2001 itself with respect to the seizure of the truck of the petitioner including two other vehicles. The final order was passed in the said proceeding on 26.6.2001 by the Court of Authorized Officer, Kolhan Forest Division, Chaibasa with observation:
On the basis of above mentioned facts and circumstances, the involvement of seized trucks bearing registration No. BRV 9596 and BRS 2521 and the dumper bearing registration No. BR-18-A-7271 in carrying out any forest-offence is not proved and hence the confiscation proceeding initiated against both these trucks and the dumper along with the stone-metals loaded on them (only on the trucks) is hereby dropped and they are ordered to be released.
Let the copy of this order be procured by all concerned.
5. In this manner it was observed that the vehicle aforesaid were not carrying forest produce and after considering all the materials and evidence on record the learned competent Court passed a detailed order and dropped the proceedings. No appeal against the said order dated 26.6.2001 is reported to has been preferred.
6. Learned Counsel urged, that it is settled law that in absence of knowledge or active participation, the owner of the commercial vehicle cannot be implicated and the petitioner has been mechanically dragged in the present case being the owner of the seized vehicle though the vehicle was not found carrying the forest produce stealthily in the confiscation proceeding. The cognizance taken of the offence by the learned S.D.J.M., Porahat, Chaibasa on 24.8.2004 beyond the period of limitation for prosecution without reasonable explanation for the condo nation of the delay under Section 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, ignoring the mandatory provision of limitation under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, amounts to misuse of the process of the Court. The maximum punishment prescribed for the offence under Section 26(1)(d)(f)(g) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 with Bihar Amendment, 1989 is imprisonment for a minimum term of six month which may extend to two years or with fine of Rs. 1,000/- which may extend to Rs. 5,000/- or with both in addition to such compensation as the convicting Court may direct to be paid. The offence under this Section shall be cognizable and non-bailable.
7. Advancing his argument, the learned Counsel submitted that for such punishment Section 468, Code of Criminal Procedure prescribes the period of limitation only three years in Section 468(2)(c) Cr PC. In the present case, the learned S.D.J.M. has relaxed the period of limitation under the provision of Section 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure without assigning any cogent reason and also without substantive satisfaction in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Court has simply observed by the order impugned that though the slackness and apathy was reflected in the conduct of the forest officers in submission of the prosecution report beyond the period of limitation but since the matter was related to the public properties therefore, he took the cognizance of the offence relaxing the period of limitation (Section 471, CrPC) against the petitioner herein and other accused persons.
8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner I found that the grounds set forth for the condo nation of delay by the learned S.D.J.M., Porahat at Chaibasa under Section 473, CrPC is wholly unsatisfactory and not justified in view of the fact that there is equality before law and equal protection of law. Only because of the fact that the matter was related to the public property the period of limitation cannot be relaxed. Moreover, the Forest Department/Prosecution Party could not afford a convincing reason for such inordinate delay so as to attract provisions of Section 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Similarly it is relevant to mention that in the confiscation proceeding the competent Court failed to establish that the stone metals were the forest properties being carrying by the Truck No. BRS/2521 and other vehicles.
9. In the circumstances, I found merit in this Criminal Revision petition and it is allowed. The entire criminal prosecution of the petitioner arising out of C/3-12/2001 pending in the Court of Shri Vishal Srivastava, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Chaibasa is quashed with the consequential effect. Petition allowed.