1 Criminal Application No.897/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.897 OF 2010 1. Narendra Dhingarmal Jain, Age 36 years, Occ. Contractor, R/o Nandurbar, at present R/o Khandbara, Tq. Akrani, District Nandurbar. 2. Shri Aditya Mangal Jain, Age 24 years, Occ. Business, R/o Nandurbar, at present R/o Khandbara, Tq. Akrani, District Nandurbar. ... PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, (Copy to be served on Public Prosecutor, High Court, Bench at Aurangabad) 2. Sahebrao s/o Namdeo Patil, Age major, Occ. Service as a Forester, R/o Makadkund Circle, Range Dhadgaon, District Nandurbar ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri A.G. Magare, Advocate for the petitioners Shri V.H. Dighe, A.P.P. for respondent No.1. ..... CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 8th February, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the accused and learned 2 Criminal Application No.897/2010 A.P.P. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, taken up for final hearing at admission stage. 2. The accuse/d applicant, as a contractor under the special scheme promulgated by Government of India, carried the activities of developing the road. All the formalities were adhered to, work order was issued to the accused/ applicant on 10.12.2008 relating to package No.MH-11 1936 Phase VII Batch-4 for construction of roads in Taluka Akrani (new connectivity) in Nandurbar District. In pursuance to said permission, the concerned forest officer, Shahada has issued no objection to carry out the activity of erection of road by letter dated 12.2.2009 (page 20). It was addressed to Nodal Executive Engineer of the Prime Minister’s Road Extension Scheme particularly Zilla Parishad, Nandurbar. By virtue of such no objection, the activities of erecting/ construction of the road was carried. The respondent No.2 lodged report dated 16.2.2009 before learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, informing that there was excavation in land Gat No.94, at Block No.192/191 and few trees were enrooted and he felt that there was loss of forest wealth. Even if the order is perused, it will not imply that deliberately the trees of which no specific reference is given in the complaint, were removed by the accused/ applicant. The activity was within the 3 Criminal Application No.897/2010 frame of authority conferred by Government. The accused/ applicant was a contractor, had no personal interest in carrying any atrocious act with the Forest property. Consequently, the prosecution by the respondent No.2 was uncalled for, calls for its quashment. Accordingly the prosecution is quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute. K.U. CHANDIWAL JUDGE