Allowed

Sri Dinesh Shetty v. the Station House Officer

Karnataka HC15 Feb 2022WP/56909/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the seizure of wooden logs and the subsequent registration of an FIR under the Karnataka Forest Act and the Indian Penal Code. The court held that since the seized property did not belong to the government, police reporting to an authorized officer instead of a magistrate violated Section 62(3) of the Act, rendering the FIR and charge-sheet unsustainable, leading to t

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.74/2016 for offences under the Karnataka Forest Act and IPC Section 420 are hereby quashed.

Sri Dinesh Shetty Vs the Station House Officer — Environment and Pollution | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

¶2

BEFORE

¶3

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 56909 OF 2016 (GM-RES)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SRI DINESH SHETTY S/O SRI RAJU SHETTY AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/AT LINGAPURA AREHALLI, BELUR TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT, PIN - 573 101. …PETITIONER

¶7

(BY SRI SACHIN B.S., ADVOCATE)

¶8

AND:

¶9

THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER HALEBEEDU POLICE STATION HASSAN DISTRICT, PIN - 573 121.

¶10

...RESPONDENT

¶11

(BY SRI RENUKARADHYA R.D., HCGP )

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.74/2016 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 80, 33, 71(A), 62 OF THE KARNATAKA FORST ACT, UNDER SECTION 165, 144 OF THE KARNATAKA FOREST RULES AND UNDER SECTION 379 AND 420 OF IPC.

¶13

-:2:-

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

On 02.05.2015, the respondent/police having received

¶17

credible information and based on the said information, they seized wooden logs and Canter vehicle transporting the said wooden logs and registered a case against the petitioner and other accused for the offence punishable under Sections 80, 33, 71(A) and 62 of the Karnataka Forest Act and also under Section 165 and 144 of the Karnataka Forest Rules and so also under Sections 279 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶18

The police, after investigation submitted charge-sheet before the learned Magistrate against the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

¶19

The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that Section 62(3) of the Karnataka Forest Act 1963 specifies that every officer seizing any property under this Section shall, as soon

¶20

-:3:-

¶21

as may be, make a report of such seizure where an offence on

¶22

account of which seizure has been made is in respect of timber belonging to the Government, to the concerned authorized officer under Section 71-A; and in other cases, to the magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence on account of which the seizure has been made. It is further contended that in the present case, admittedly wooden logs does not belong to the Government, and under such circumstance, seizure of the wooden logs and registration of FIR against the petitioner under Section 62(2) of the act is not in accordance with law. The alleged offences against the petitioner is cognizable and non-bailable, and under such circumstances, the police without registration of the FIR have seized wooden logs and the same is without authority of law. In support of his contentions, he had placed reliance on the following decisions:

¶23

i) Crl.P.No.4263/2020 (Badrul Muneer V/s. State and State of Karnataka disposed of by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide its order dated 13.01.2021;

¶24

ii) 2019 SCC Online MP Page 4020 (Ramesh V/s. State of Madhya Pradesh);

¶25

-:4:-

¶26

iii) 2020 SCC Online Guj Page 1350 (Jitendra Kumar Gopaldas Rijwani V/s. State of Gujarat;

¶27

iv) ILR (2015) M.P., 1589 (Rajveer Singh V/s. State of M.P & Others).

¶28

He further submits that the allegation made in the First Information Report does not disclose that the commission of the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and chargesheet submitted by the police after investigation requires to be quashed.

¶29

On the other hand, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent would submit that the petitioner had transported the wooden logs without obtaining license which is in violation of the provisions of the Karnataka Forest Act and Rules and thereby, have committed the alleged offences. Hence, filing of the charge-sheet against the petitioner is in accordance with law and does not require any interference.

¶30

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶31

-:5:-

¶32

Section 62(3) of the Karnataka Forest Act specifies that every officer seizing any property under the said Section shall, as soon as may be, make a report of such seizure where an offence on account of which the seizure has been made is in respect of the property belonging to the Government, to the authorized officer under Section 71-A of the Act and in other cases, to the magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence on account of which the seizure has been made.

¶33

In the present case, the property seized does not belong to the Government. The respondent instead of submitting a report to the jurisdictional Magistrate has reported the same to the authorized officer as specified under Section 71-A of the Karnataka Forest Act. Hence, seizure of the property and registration of the FIR by Respondent No.1 is contrary to the provisions of Section 62(3) of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963.

¶34

The offences alleged against the petitioner are cognizable and non-bailable. The police without registration of the FIR for the alleged offences which are cognizable and non-bailable

¶35

-:6:-

¶36

could not have conducted investigation. In the FIR, there is no allegation that the petitioner had dishonest intention to cheat the Government from inception so as to attract the offence under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, in view of the aforesaid forgoing discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the First Information Report lodged against the petitioner as well as filing of the charge-sheet against the petitioner is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶37

ORDER

¶38

i) The Writ Petition is allowed;

¶39

ii) The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.74/2016 pending on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC at Belur for the offences punishable under Section 80, 33, 71(A), 62 of the Karnataka Forest Act, under Section 165, 144 of the Karnataka Forest Rules and under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is hereby quashed.

¶40

Sd/JUDGE

¶41

Sri Dinesh Shetty v. the Station House Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Dinesh Shetty v. the Station House Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Shruthi Y Vs the Commissioner

G Aswathamma Vs State of Karnataka

L Govindraj Vs the Chief Commissioner

Sri Swamy R T Vs State by Santhebennur P.S.

Nandeesh Chikkanna Vs M/S. Magma Fincorp Limited

Sri Mircle Varadaraju Vs State of Karnataka