Allowed

Raghavendra v. the State of Karnataka by

Karnataka HC16 Nov 2023CRL.P/1764/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal under Section 482 CrPC, the Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court quashed a criminal prosecution for offenses under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, holding that the investigation was invalid as it was conducted by a Police Inspector without the requisite status or authorization mandated by Sections 50(8) and 55 of that Act.

What did the court decide?

The impugned prosecution in C.C.No.360/2016 was quashed.

Raghavendra Vs the State of Karnataka by — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:40942 CRL.P No. 1764 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1764 OF 2019

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

RAGHAVENDRA S/O KARIAYANNA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS RESIDING AT NEAR SHANKAR HOSPITAL, BALAJINAPPA, SIRA TOWN,

¶8

TUMAKURU-572103.

¶9

HEMANTH S/O DATHTERYA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, RESIDING AT SAPTHAGIRI EXTENSION, TUMAKURU-572103.

¶10

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

MANJUNATHA K S/O KARIYANNA, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, SANHEPETE SIRA TOWN, SIRA TALUK, TUMKURU-572103.

¶12

MANOJA KUMARA S/O VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, RESIDIGN AT NO.58/5, 3^RD MAIN ROAD, KASTURI BA NAGARA, BENGALURU-560028.

¶13

SANTHOSH S/O HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, RESIDING AT VINAYAKA NAGARA, FIRST MAIN, 9^TH MAIN CROSS, DHAVAGERRE TOWN, KARNATAKA-577201.

¶14

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:40942 CRL.P No. 1764 of 2019

¶15

DELETED DUE TO DEATH

¶16

AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT AS PER ORDER DATED 01.09.2023.

¶17

…PETITIONERS

¶18

(BY SMT. MANJULA D., ADVOCATE)

¶19

AND:

¶20

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SIRA POLICE STATION, REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001.

¶21

HONNAPPA H.N. POLICE INSPECTOR, CID AT DIVISION, BENGALURU-560001.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAJAT SUBRAMANYAM, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER)

¶23

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET FILED AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN CHARGE SHEET IN CR.NO.275/2015 IN C.C.NO.360/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SIRA, TUMKURU DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 9, 39, 40, 44, 49(B), 49(C), 50, 51 OF WILD ANIMAL PROTECTION ACT READ WITH SECTION 379 OF IPC.

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The petitioners have challenged the prosecution launched against them in C.C.No.360/2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 9, 39, 40, 44, 49B, 49C, 50 and 51 of

¶27

¶28

NC: 2023:KHC:40942 CRL.P No. 1764 of 2019

¶29

the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and Section 379 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, (henceforth referred to as 'IPC' for short) pending trial before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Sira, Tumakuru District.

¶30

Based on credible information received by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, CID, Forest Cell, that in and around Sira, Wild animals were poached for their skin, he instructed the Police Inspector, CID, Forest Cell, to take action. Consequently, Sub-Inspector of Police, along with his staff, went to Sira and met the informants. They waited near Daycare lab on Balaji Main road in Sira town. At about 09:30 a.m. on 13.10.2015 two of the petitioners came on a motorbike and one of them was carrying a white plastic cover. The raiding team on suspicion, checked the bag and found three black buck skin and when enquired, they revealed their names as Raghavendra @ Raghu and Hemanth. Later, three other petitioners came on a bike which did not have a registration plate. The accused No.1/Raghu informed the team that the accused No.2/Hemanth had handed over the black-buck skin, and when accused No.2 was enquired, he disclosed that his uncle had got them and handed it over to him. The uncle of the

¶31

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:40942 CRL.P No. 1764 of 2019

¶32

accused No.2 was arraigned as accused No.6/Nagaraju. The accused No.3/Manjunath was apprehended and was produced before the Deputy Superintendent of Police who directed that a case be registered. Accordingly, a case in Cr.No.275/2015 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 9, 39, 40, 44, 49B, 49C, 50 and 51 of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 read with Section 379 of IPC.

¶33

The respondent took up investigation and recorded the statement of witnesses, who all stated that three blackbuck skin was seized from the custody of accused Nos.1 and 2. While, accused Nos.3, 4 and 5 were with accused Nos.1 and 2. Based upon this, a charge sheet was filed for the offences punishable under Sections 9, 39, 40, 44, 49B, 49C, 50 and 51 of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.

¶34

The Trial Court perused the charge sheet and took cognizance of the aforesaid offences and registered C.C.No.360/2016 and issued process.

¶35

Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court.

¶36

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:40942 CRL.P No. 1764 of 2019

¶37

The learned counsel for the petitioners contend that the offences alleged against the petitioners were under Sections 9, 49B of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. She submits that the procedure for taking cognizance of offences punishable under the Wild Life (Protection) Act is set out in Section 55 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, which reads as follows:-

¶38

" 55. Cognizance of offences .— No court shall take cognizance of any offence against this Act on the complaint of any person other than—

¶39

(a) the Director of Wild Life Preservation or any other officer authorised in this behalf by the Central Government; or

¶40

(aa) the Member-Secretary, Central Zoo Authority in matters relating to violation of the provisions of Chapter IVA; or

¶41

(ab) Member-Secretary, Tiger Conservation Authority; or

¶42

(ac) Director of the concerned tiger reserve;

¶43

¶44

(b) the Chief Wild Life Warden, or any other officer authorised in this behalf by the State

¶45

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:40942 CRL.P No. 1764 of 2019

¶46

Government subject to such conditions as may be specified by that Government; or

¶47

(bb) the officer-in-charge of the zoo in respect of violation of provisions of section 38J; or

¶48

(c) any person who has given notice of not less than sixty days, in the manner prescribed, of the alleged offence and of his intention to make a complaint, to the Central Government or the State Government or the officer authorised as aforesaid."

¶49

The learned counsel for the petitioners therefore, submits that the charge-sheet filed by the respondent No.1 is without jurisdiction and is in absolute violation of Section 55 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act. Hence, she submits that the Trial Court committed an error in taking cognizance and issuing process to the petitioners. She further contends that the right to investigate an offence under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, is invested in an officer not below the rank of an Assistant Conservator of Forests as provided under Section 50(8) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act. Therefore, the question of respondent No.1 issuing a search warrant and seize any articles from the petitioners was without jurisdiction and was a willful exercise of colourable power by the respondent No.1.

¶50

¶51

NC: 2023:KHC:40942 CRL.P No. 1764 of 2019

¶52

Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader submits that the State Government had issued a notification dated 26.08.2010 for the purpose of Sections 50(8) and 55B of the Wild Life (Protection) Act. He submits that all officers of the rank of Conservator of Forests, Deputy Conservator of Forests and Assistant Conservator of Forests of their respective division are entitled to investigate the offence under the Wild Life (Protection) Act. He submitted that for initiating prosecution by filing a private complaint, all officers above rank of Forester within their territorial jurisdiction are authorized to launch the prosecution against the accused. He therefore, submits that in the instant case, the investigation is done by the Police Inspector, Sira Town Police Station, Tumakuru, while the complaint was lodged by the Police Inspector, CID, Forest Division, Bengaluru.

¶53

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondents.

¶54

Section 50(8) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act reads as follows:-

¶55

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:40942 CRL.P No. 1764 of 2019

¶56

" 50. Power of entry, search, arrest and

¶57

detention.-

¶58

(1) to (7) xxxxxx

¶59

(8) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, any officer not below the rank of an Assistant Director of Wild Life Preservation or an officer not below the rank of Assistant Conservator of Forests authorized by the State Government in this behalf shall have the powers, for purposes of making investigation into any offence against any provision of this Act,-

¶60

(a) to issue a search warrant;

¶61

(b) to enforce the attendance of witnesses;

¶62

(c) to compel the discovery and production of documents and material objects; and

¶63

(d) to receive and record evidence."

¶64

A perusal of Section 50(8) of the Wild Life

¶65

(Protection) Act as extracted above would disclose that any officer not below the rank of an Assistant Conservator of Forest is invested with the powers of an investigating officer. Once forest offence is committed and incriminating material recovered by the investigating officer, any Forest officer above the rank of Forester is authorized to file a complaint under

¶66

9 - NC: 2023:KHC:40942 CRL.P No. 1764 of 2019

¶67

Section 55 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act and thereafter, the proceedings to investigate the offence shall begin.

¶68

The instant case discloses that the complaint was lodged by the respondent No.2 about the commission of offence punishable under the Wild Life (Protection) Act and such complaint was registered by the Police Inspector, CID, Forest Division, Bengaluru, whereupon an investigation was undertaken by the Police Inspector, Sira Town Police Station, Tumakuru, who filed a charge-sheet. It is therefore, evident that the entire investigation is done by an officer who did not have the authority and the manner in which the charge-sheet is filed, falls foul of the provision contained under Sections 55 and 50(8) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act. In that view of the matter, the instant prosecution of the petitioners is liable to be quashed.

¶69

Consequently, this petition is allowed . The impugned prosecution of the petitioners in C.C.No.360/2016 pending consideration before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Sira, for the offences punishable under Sections 9, 39,

¶70

10 -

¶71

NC: 2023:KHC:40942 CRL.P No. 1764 of 2019

¶72

40, 49B, 49C, 50 and 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 is quashed.

¶73

In view of disposal of the petition, pending I.As., if any, do not survive for consideration and the same stands disposed off.

¶74

Sd/JUDGE

¶75

HJ - Para Nos. 1 to 6 PMR - para Nos.7 to end List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29

Raghavendra v. the State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raghavendra v. the State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Bhagya Bai @ Bhagyamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Naveena D R Vs Smt B H Latha

Smt Suma K Vs the State by Lokayuktha Police

Sri K G Suresh Vs Smt Jyothi S G

Mrs. Hu Xiaolin Vs the State of Karnataka

The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise(Legal) Vs M/S Anugraha Engineering