‘ BEFORE THE HON’BLE CHHATTISGARH AT CR.M.P.N0. [40 PETITION UNDER SECTION 48' PROCEDURE CODE Ram H, son of Truck t6 My‘i’gj' Bandhiyakhar, OVW@O§)Q “I l Q“ Distt. VERSUS :f‘i 1 RESPONDENTS 1. State of — Its Dau Kalyan (Chhattisgarh) The Sub Dharamjaigarh Competent a. w/ 3 «Li Dharamjaigarh, a? /% (Chhattisgarh) 3. Forest Dharamjaigarh, HIGH COURT BILASPUR C.G. /2006 OF THE 1973 Lakhan, aged Shrichand Mahto, Driver, resident Tah. Jashpur (C.G.) Chhattisgarh, Secretary, Department Singh Divisional District Range Officer, Distt.. OF sink Ianch CRIMINAL about 7O years, occupation of ~ Patthalgaon, through of Forest, Bhawan, Raipur Officer (Forest), (Prescribed Authority), Raigarh Forest Range, Raigarh (C.G.) r t 1 XI—HC—78 HW,WW,W _Wm (K;./.L:l:€3%?ifl..?... ‘4 /z_mz{ a 200 WW(W) WWW WWW WW§WW mmmm "” %31%W311%$T 1 5.2.2007 Shri A. N. Bhakta , counsel for the oetitioner. ullu Ct": f‘ 9.1\. l! ucuwcl, D-.:u....l nu Hy. r\‘ A r‘ o. aaaaaaa ayyuaia s... IVI & u e uLaLc. ehd.‘ Heard on admission. This is a petition fiied u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking direction for filing of the charge sheet by respondents 2 & 3 and also‘“f3r quashing ihe offence reg stered against the petitioner under the Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, 1984 by the Forest Officer concerned. Learned counsel for the 779/2006 dated 1/1/2005 an offe ce under Sections 26(1) (3), 52(2) of the Forest Act and section 3 of the Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, 1984 was regi tered against the applicant bv the concerned Forest Ranger, Dhara jaigarh. He was taken into custody in the said case and ultimately he released on regular bail u/s 439 on 1 3/1/2005. The copy of the bail or er has been tiled as Annexure P/2. Learned counsel for the ap, licant submits that for the said offence. the charge sheet has not been ed till date. His grievance is that the concerned authorities be directed to tile the charge sheet and that the registration and investigation of c 'me under Section 3 of the Prevention of Damages to Public Property A t, 1984, which have been done bv the forest authorities be also quashe as the same has been done without jurisdiction. So far as the grievan e of the petitioner reaardina t mind of charge sheet is concerned. it ca not be directed by this Court to the prosecution agencyto filethe char e sheet. Under the Code Of Criminal Procedure the prosecutio is at liberty to investigate the matter P.T.O. s l XI-HC-78 oo¢o.o. mammeahmdamgr . CRJWvK/‘b: 190 IWK in 200 WW(W) mam WWW mmWm ’2' WW§WW %31%1I311%3T w: to its satisfaction and if after th‘ conclusion that a charge has to be tiled and if unnecessary time is taken and the limitation for filing a section is lapsed, the law will take its own etit of the same would go to the accused. charge sheet under a particular course in that situation and ben Such directions are not to be given by the Courts because there may be a case? in which the prosecution may not decide to tile charge sheet against a particular person on the bas of out come of the final investigation in the case. So far as. the other grevance is concerned)that whether the cognizance can be taken on su h charge sheet in a court of law, which is tiled by a Forest Oincer in the atter’ of Prevention of Damages to Public Property Act, 1984, that is also matter which can be decided after filing of the charge sheet under that _ articular section, because if the question , of iurisdiction could be raised, i shall be decided by the competent court ‘ at the appropriate stage. At thi stage, no such reliefs can be granted in a petition fried uis 482 Cr.P.C. The petition has no m rits and the same is dismissed at the admission stage, itself. r.P.No.2274/2006 also stands dismissed. ln view of the above, M Sd/- SUNIL KUMAR SINHA Judge . P.T.O. acomolete investigation, it reaches to the be filed then only the charge sheet has to i .