IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.8381 OF 2016 BETWEEN:
Sri. Abdul Majeeb, S/o. Sri. Hasainer, Aged about 28 years, Alanthadka House, Karnoor Post, Nettanagi – Mudanoor, Puttur Taluk – 574 201.
D.K. District. …Petitioner (By Sri. Aruna Shyam M., Advocate) AND:
The State, By Range Forest Officer, Puttur Range, Puttur, Through State Public Prosecutor, High Court Building, Bengaluru – 560 001. ...Respondent (By Sri. Nasrulla Khan, HCGP) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to quash the entire proceedings in O.R.No.18/2009-10 RFO, Puttur and C.C.No.1598/2014 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) and JMFC, Puttur, D.K., including the complaint, FIR and Charge Sheet in O.R.No.18/2009-10 and pursuant thereto which are produced at document No.1.
This Criminal petition coming on for Admission, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Petitioner is accused No.2 in a forest offence registered in O.R.No.18/2009-10 RFO, Puttur, presently pending on the file of the Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and JMFC, Puttur, D.K., in C.C.No.1598/2014.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised twofold contentions. Firstly, he contends that by virtue of Section 62-A of the Karnataka Forest Act, Range Forest Officer has no jurisdiction to register the case and to investigate into the offence under the provisions of IPC. Secondly, before registering the FIR, the Range Forest Officer has proceeded to conduct investigation contrary to Section 156 of Cr.P.C. and hence, on both these grounds impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed.
3. Refuting the submissions, the learned HCGP has argued that the respondent has not committed any illegality either in registering the case or in submitting the FIR to the jurisdictional Court. The offences alleged against the petitioner are principally punishable under the provisions of the Karnataka Forest Act. The offences under the IPC are only incidental to the main offence. Therefore, there is no illegality in registration of the case. In so far as the second contention is concerned, the learned HCGP submits that in the FIR, time of registration of the FIR is not mentioned. Therefore, the contention urged by the petitioner is not tenable.
4. Considered the submissions and perused the record. A reading of the complaint indicates that on receipt of credible information on 09.07.2009, the Range Forest Officer along with his team intercepted a jeep bearing No. KA-21 M-1854 and seized teak logs illegally transported by the petitioner and accused No.1. Both the accused were arrested at the spot and the goods were seized and FIR was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 24(e), 62, 71(a), 104(a) of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 r/w Sections 127(a), 144 r/w 165 of IPC and Section 379 of IPC.
5. In so far as the jurisdiction of the Forest Officer to register the case and to conduct investigation is concerned, Section 62-A of the Karnataka Forest Act specifically provides that any Forest officer not below the rank of a Range Forest Officer within such specified area as the State Government may, by notification specify, may as regards offences under the Act is empowered to exercise powers conferred on an officer in-charge of a police station by the provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Sub-Section (2) of Section 62-A further provides that for the purpose of Section 156 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the area in regard to which the Forest Officer is empowered under sub-section(1), shall be deemed to be a police station and such officer shall be deemed to be the officer in-charge of such station.
6. A reading of this provision, therefore, makes it clear that the Range Forest Officer is empowered to register the case and to conduct investigation in respect of the offences under the Karnataka Forest Act. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the Range Forest Officer who registered the FIR in the instant case was empowered under sub-section(1) of Section 62-A to register the FIR and to investigate into the forest offences. By virtue of the said appointment he is deemed to be a police officer and therefore, he is entitled to exercise all the powers of a police officer in- charge of such police station, which includes the powers to register the case. Therefore, I do not find any error or illegality in registration of the case for the forest offence as well as for the offences under the IPC is concerned. Hence the first contention is rejected.
7. Coming to the second contention urged by the petitioner is concerned, the question whether the registration of F.I.R cannot precede the investigation or the F.I.R could be registered under the midst of process of investigation came up for consideration before the coordinate Bench of this High Court in Criminal Petition No.15941 of 2012 c/w Criminal Petition No.15852 of 2012 disposed on 5th February, 2012 (Sri GIRISHCHANDRA vs. STATE BY LOKAYUKTHA POLICE, YADGIR).
8. In the said case, the Investigating Officer on getting credible information that in the Sub-Registrar’s office, the Sub-Registrar was demanding and accepting bribe from the public who were presenting their documents for registration, without registering the said information, proceeded to the Sub-Registrar’s office. Upon search of the Sub-Registrar and other officials, he did not find any money in their possession, but from other persons who were in the office and who were not the officials, substantial sums were found in possession. The Investigating Officer drew up the Mahazar and seized the money from the said persons and thereafter arrested the Sub-Registrar and the official staff and came back to the police station and registered an F.I.R. In the background of the said facts this Court has held that whether registration of F.I.R should precede the investigation or that F.I.R could be registered in the midst of process of investigation would always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In a situation where an offence is committed right in the presence of a police officer, it would be imprudent to insist that he should rush to the police station to record the F.I.R. The police officer should immediately act, like apprehending the accused, sending the victim to medical treatment and thereafter registration of F.I.R would be an ideal investigation procedure.
9. In the instant case, Range Forest Officer appears to have failed to follow the procedure prescribed under Section 154 of Cr.P.C., apparently for the reason that on receipt of credible information on 09.07.2009, he along with his team intercepted the jeep bearing No. KA-
21 M-1854 and found teak logs illegally being transported by the petitioner and accused No.1.
10. Under the said circumstances, Range Forest Officer appears to have found it necessary to seize the goods immediately and thereafter to go for the police station and register the F.I.R. Of course, I do not approve the procedure followed by Range Forest Officer especially in view of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India in the case of LALITHA KUMARI VS. GOVERNMENT OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1 wherein considering the legislative intent of Section 154 of Cr.P.C., the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down that any information disclosing of a cognizable offence is laid before the officer in charge of a Police Station, satisfying the requirements of section 154(1) of the Code, such Police Officer has no other option except to enter the substance thereof in the prescribed form, that is to say to register the case on the basis of such information. In the instant case, Range Forest Officer having acted in accordance with Section 157 of Cr.P.C. and no prejudice or failure of justice having been made out and moreover, there being no breach of any mandatory requirements of law or jurisdiction in registering the offence or in conducting the investigation, in my view, the irregularities pointed out by the accused do not militate against the case of prosecution in any manner. Resultantly, the contention urged in this regard is rejected.
Consequently, petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE SV