IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.6113/2013 BETWEEN:
Sri. Ganesh Nayak, S/o Pundaleek Nayak, Aged about 42 years, Managing Director of M/s. Prakash Saw Mills Ltd. FerryRoad, Kundapura- 576 201. … Petitioner (By Sri. Mahesh Kiran Shetty, Advocate) AND:
The Station House Officer, Forest Squad, Udupi, Udupi District, Represented by the Public Prosecutor High Court Buildings, Bangalore- 560 0001. ... Respondent (By Sri. I.S. Pramod Chandra, SPP-II ) This Criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to quash the entire proceedings pending in C.C.No.2216/2013 on the file of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) & JMFC., Kundapura and etc.
This Criminal petition coming on for Admission, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Petitioner has sought to quash the proceedings registered against him in C.C.No.2216/2013 for the offences punishable under Section 104A of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 (“the Act”, for short) r/w Rule 127A and 164 of the Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969 (“the Rules”, for short).
2. The petitioner is the Managing Director of M/s. Prakash Saw Mills Limited, a company registered under the Companies Act. According to the respondent, the premises of the petitioner was searched on 02.09.2012 and it was found that the petitioner had stacked 13 black wood logs in his premises. The said logs were seized under a mahazar dated 03.09.2012 and charge-sheet has been laid against the petitioner for the above offences.
3. The learned counsel for petitioner submits that the facts noted in the Panchanama and FIR indicate that the said logs were seized from outside the premises of the petitioner. As per FIR, the logs were found outside the licensed premises by the roadside. In order to attract the provisions of Section 104A of the Act, the accused should be in possession of the black wood trees or timber thereof. Since there is no material to show that seized black wood logs were in the possession of the petitioner, the prosecution of the petitioner for an offence under Section 104A of the Act is manifestly illegal and abuse of process of the court. He further submits that Rule 127A and 164 of the Rules are also not applicable to the facts of the case. Rule 127A of the Rules permits cutting, selling and sale or disposal of black wood trees. Since the allegations made in the complaint do not indicate that petitioner herein was either involved in cutting, selling and sale or disposal of black wood trees, even the provisions of Rule 127A and 164 of the Rules are not applicable.
4. Sri. I. S. Pramod Chandra, learned SPP-II appearing for the respondent, however has argued in support of the impugned action and would submit that the seizure mahazar as well as the statement of the writer and other police officials who seized the logs clearly makes out the ingredients of offences alleged against the petitioner.
5. On careful consideration of the submission made by the petitioner and on going through the contents of the mahazar and the statement of witnesses, it is clear that 13 logs of black wood were seized on 03.09.2012. In the Panchanama, it is mentioned that the said black wood wooden logs were found at a distance of 30 meters from the licensed premises of the petitioner. Though the petitioner and the writer were not present during the seizure, but the circumstances depicted in the Panchanama indicate that the logs were in the constructive possession of the petitioner. Section 104A of the Act does not require that the forest produce should be in actual possession and enjoyment of the licensee. It is a common knowledge that Saw Mill owners generally store logs or forest produce in and around the premises. As long as the prosecution is able to establish that the licensee had constructive possession of the said logs or forest produce, merely on the ground of defence set up by the petitioner that he was not in actual possession of the wooden logs and the same was not recovered from his licensed premises cannot be a ground to hold that the offence has not been committed by the petitioner herein. Therefore, I am not inclined to accept the submission of the learned counsel for petitioner that the facts disclosed in the FIR do not make out ingredients of an offence under Section 104A of the Act.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of this court in the case of C. LAKSHMINARAYANA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER [ 2003 CRL. LJ 2087]. In the said case, on credible information, the mobile squad of the Forest Department conducted a raid on the petitioner’s premises and found that petitioner was in possession of 2.583 cft. of rosewood pieces. Since the provision did not prohibit possession of rosewood tree, it was held that the possession of rosewood by the petitioner was not in violation of Section 104A of the Act.
7. In the instant case, the seized property was black wood logs, which clearly fall within the ambit of Section 104A of the Act. It is not the case of the petitioner that he had stacked the said logs for his bonafide personal use. The petitioner being a trader, it can be presumed that the said logs were stored by the petitioner only for the purpose of trading and transportation thereof.
8. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the present petition. It is accordingly dismissed. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to seek his discharge on such grounds available under the law.
Sd/- JUDGE Np/-