The Chhattisgarh High Court decisively held that prosecution under Section 26(1) of the Chhattisgarh Forest Act, 1972 and Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 cannot continue where statutory preconditions—such as proof of “reserved forest” status or actual damage—are not met. The decision upholds Supreme Court and High Court precedent, providing binding guidance on strict adherence to statutory requirements and fair investigation timelines in environmental and public property offences.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRMP/3230/2025 of RAJKUMAR Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH |
| CNR | CGHC010434742025 |
| Date of Registration | 17-10-2025 |
| Decision Date | 27-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge |
| Court | High Court of Chhattisgarh |
| Bench | Division Bench (Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru) |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority within the jurisdiction of the Chhattisgarh High Court |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law |
|
| Questions of Law | Whether criminal prosecution under Section 26(1) Chhattisgarh Forest Act, 1972 and Section 3(1) PDPP Act, 1984 can continue in absence of “reserved forest” status or specific proof of public property damage. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The essential condition for prosecution under Section 26(1) of the Chhattisgarh Forest Act, 1972 is that the alleged act must occur within a reserved forest. If the land is not notified as reserved forest, Section 26(1) is not attracted. Likewise, under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, allegations must specifically point to actual damage or destruction of public property. Mere generalized claims or prolonged investigation without final report amounts to abuse of process and violates Article 21. Hence, continuation of proceedings without fulfilment of statutory conditions is not permissible. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Penal provisions must be strictly construed; preconditions must be affirmatively established; fair investigation timelines under Article 21 must be maintained. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Petitioners, long-term cultivators, were shifted by the Forest Department from Khasra No. 266 to 265, which was not notified as reserved forest. No trees felled, no forest produce seized, and no evidence of public property damage. The investigation has remained pending for over four years without progress. Allegations are vague and generalized. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the jurisdiction of the Chhattisgarh High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and Supreme Court |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The Chhattisgarh High Court reaffirmed that offences under Section 26(1) of the Forest Act or Section 3(1) of the PDPP Act must meet strict statutory preconditions—mere allegations or prolonged investigation are insufficient.
- Lack of notification as “reserved forest” precludes prosecution under the Chhattisgarh Forest Act, 1972.
- Absence of specific, proven damage to public property negates application of Section 3(1) of the PDPP Act, 1984.
- Prolonged investigations without filing a final report or charge-sheet may be quashed as violative of Article 21 and an abuse of process.
- Lawyers can cite this judgment to demand strict proof of statutory conditions and challenge long-pending investigations or vague allegations in forest/public property criminal cases.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court examined the documentary record, confirming the petitioners were relocated by the Forest Department from Khasra No. 266 to 265, the latter not being notified as reserved forest under Section 20 of the Chhattisgarh Forest Act, 1972.
- It held that prosecution under Section 26(1) requires the alleged act to take place in a reserved forest; absence of such notification is fatal.
- The Court found no evidence of felling, seizure, or destruction justifying invocation of Section 3(1) of the PDPP Act, 1984.
- Vague allegations and non-specific claims, coupled with a long-pending investigation, violate the principles of fair investigation protected by Article 21.
- The Court relied on UOI v. Abdul Jalil (Supreme Court) and Parsan v. State of U.P. (Allahabad HC) to emphasize that penal provisions must be strictly construed and absent preconditions, prosecution must be quashed.
- The Court concluded that continuation of proceedings would amount to harassment and is an abuse of process.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioners:
- Khasra No. 265 is not a reserved forest; ingredients of Section 26(1) of Forest Act, 1972 not met.
- No forest produce seized, no trees cut, and no public property damaged—Section 3(1) of PDPP Act not attracted.
- Investigation pending for over four years without progression; continuation results in harassment.
- Van Adhikar Patta application for same land is pending, reinforcing their claim.
- Cited Supreme Court’s Abdul Jalil and Allahabad HC’s Parsan for quashing where statutory ingredients are lacking and allegations vague.
Respondent/State:
- Land originally belonged to Forest Department; petitioners in unauthorized occupation.
- Petitioners, after removal, encroached adjoining land (Khasra No. 265), amounting to interference with government property.
- Admitted investigation has been pending since 2021, with no charge-sheet filed.
Factual Background
Petitioners, long-time cultivators, were shifted from Forest Department land (Khasra No. 266) to Khasra No. 265 in Village Bhajpuri, District Mahasamund, by oral instructions from authorities. Crime No. 14327 of 2009 was registered on 11.06.2021 under Section 26(1) of the Chhattisgarh Forest Act, 1972 and Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. No forest produce was seized, nor was any evidence of damage or illegal felling found. Investigation has lingered for over four years, with the petitioners’ claim for Van Adhikar Patta pending on the same land.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 26(1), Chhattisgarh Forest Act, 1972: Requires that the alleged act occur in a “reserved forest”—as defined and notified under Section 20. The Court found no such notification had been issued for Khasra No. 265, making the section inapplicable.
- Section 3(1), Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984: Penalizes specific acts of damaging public property. The Court found no evidence of damage, felling, or seizure, and allegations remained vague.
- Article 21, Constitution of India: Prolonged, non-conclusive investigation without a final report infringes the right to a fair investigation and is an abuse of process.
- Strict interpretation: The Court reaffirmed that penal statutes such as these require strict adherence to statutory language and explicit satisfaction of their conditions.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
The judgment was delivered per Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha with full concurrence by Justice Bibhu Datta Guru. No dissenting opinion is recorded.
Procedural Innovations
- The Court reiterated that prosecution based on vague allegations and without conclusive investigation for prolonged periods violates Article 21 and warrants quashing.
- Cited fair investigation timelines as integral to the process.
- No further procedural innovations were set out.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Court affirmed established law requiring strict satisfaction of statutory preconditions for criminal prosecution under forest and public property statutes.