Allowed

Mr Nandit Jayasimha v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC6 Dec 2021CRL.P/953/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Petition filed to quash criminal proceedings under Section 379 IPC for possession of three star tortoises. The court found that the facts showed no element of dishonest taking without consent. Consequently, the cognizance order was quashed and proceedings set aside.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the order dated 15.06.2018 taking cognizance of offence under Section 379 IPC; consequently quashed all proceedings against the petitioner in the said case.

Mr Nandit Jayasimha Vs the State of Karnataka — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 06^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.953 OF 2020

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

Mr. Nandit Jayasimha, Aged 31 years, Son of B.S.Jaisimha, Residing at No.71/01B, Nagavarapalya Main Road, C.V.Raman Nagar, Bengaluru-560093.

¶8

…Petitioner

¶9

(By Sri P.P.Hegde, Advocate)

¶10

AND:

¶11

The State of Karnataka, Through the Police Inspector, Byappanahalli Police Station, Bengaluru City-560049.

¶12

The State of Karnataka, Through the Sub Inspector, CID Forest Cell, Bengaluru

¶13

Both are represented by the State Public Prosecutor, High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru - 575001.

¶14

…Respondents

¶15

(By Sri B.J.Rohith, HCGP)

¶16

:: 2 ::

¶17

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.54844/2018 pending on the file of X A.C.M.M., Mayohall Court Complex, Bengaluru for the offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC (arising out of Cr.No.187/2017 of Byappanahalli Police Station, Bengaluru for the offence punishable under Section 40, 9, 49(c), 49(B), 39, 50 and 51 of Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 and all further proceedings in the said case.

¶18

This Criminal Petition coming on for admission this day, the Court made the following:

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Heard Sri P.P.Hegde, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2.

¶21

In this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner has sought to quash the order of the Magistrate dated 15.06.2018, taking cognizance of the offence under Section 379 of IPC against him.

¶22

:: 3 ::

¶23

Briefly stated the facts are that, the SHO

¶24

of Byappanahalli police station received credible information that the petitioner had in his possession three live star tortoises (Testudinidae). On this information, the police conducted raid on the house of the petitioner on 11.09.2017 and found three tortoises kept in a cardboard box. The petitioner failed to give explanation for their possession and this resulted in FIR being registered against him for the offences punishable under Sections 9, 39, 40, 49(B)(C), 50 and 51 of the Wild Life Protection Act read with Section 379 of IPC. Investigation followed the FIR and charge sheet has been filed for the above offences.

¶25

But the learned Magistrate while taking cognizance of the offences, did not take cognizance for the offences under the provisions of Wild Life Protection Act and took cognizance only for the offence punishable under Section 379 of

¶26

:: 4 ::

¶27

IPC. Therefore it is enough to examine whether

¶28

there are ingredients for the offence under Section 379 of IPC.

¶29

It is not in dispute that the tortoises were recovered from the possession of the petitioner. During investigation, statements of witnesses, namely, Umer Sharieff Rehaman, Narendra S, Mohammed Samad and V.Krishna (CW7 to 10) were recorded. Their statements indicate that the petitioner’s uncle, Gopal, brought the tortoises about 20 years ago and he gave them to the petitioner, who was rearing them by feeding food. They have stated that the petitioner had kept the tortoises with him not for the purpose of selling or exhibition; he is an animal lover. Probably for this reason, the learned Magistrate did not taken cognizance for the offences under the provisions of Wild Life Protection Act.

¶30

:: 5 ::

¶31

Section 379 of IPC requires that one

¶32

person must dishonestly take away the movable property out of the possession of another without the latter’s consent.

¶33

The statements of CW7 to CW10 do not disclose that the petitioner had brought the tortoises to his house dishonestly without the consent of any other person. Their statements make it clear that he was protecting the tortoises by feeding them. Therefore, the offence under Section 379 of IPC does not constitute.

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri P.P.Hegde submits that according to Section 55 of

¶35

the Wild Life Protection Act, the police do not get jurisdiction to file charge sheet. Any way, learned Magistrate did not take cognizance for the offences under the provisions of Wild Life Protection Act; and even taking cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC was

¶36

:: 6 ::

¶37

unwarranted. In this view, it is not necessary to examine this line of argument. With these observations, the following order is passed.

¶38

ORDER

¶39

Petition is allowed.

¶40

Order dated 15.06.2018, taking cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC against the petitioner in C.C.No.54844/2018 by the X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru is hereby quashed. Consequently, proceedings against the petitioner in the said case also stands quashed.

¶41

SD/JUDGE

¶42

Kmv/-

Mr Nandit Jayasimha v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Nandit Jayasimha v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Paul D Souza Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Vinodh Kumar N Vs S C Chandrappa

Mohankumar Vs State of Karnataka

M Sowbhagya Vs State of Karnataka

Kadarappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri M L Ashok Kumar Vs State by Hebbal Police