IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION No. 8114/2016 BETWEEN:
SRI. LAKHANI.B.H S/O LATE H.M.LAKHANI, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/AT 2ND BLOCK, JAYALAKSHMIPURAM, MYSURU.
ALSO AT GPA HOLDER M/S NILGIRI PLANTATION LTD., HONNAMETI ESTATE/ATHIKAN POST KOLLEGAL TALUK CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT.
(By SRI.K.B.MONESH KUMAR, ADV.) AND STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH RANGE FOREST OFFICER FOREST DEPARTMENT WILD LIFE DIVISION, PUNAJANUR CHAMARAJANAGAR (COMPLAINANT IS SERVED ... PETITIONER THROUGH THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE).
... RESPONDENT (By Sri.I.S.PRAMOD CHANDRA, SPP-II) THIS CRL.PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT AND FIR REGISTERED AGAINST THE PETR. IN FOC NO.03/2016-17 FOR OFFENCES P/U/S 17A,29,50,51 R/W SEC.2(15),(26) OF THE WILD LIFE PROTECTION ACT AND SEC.104A T/W SEC.2(7),15(15),20 AND 104D OF FOREST ACT AND R/W SEC.127A,144,145 R/W SEC.165 OF KATNATAKA FOREST RULES, PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHAMARAJANAGAR.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner is the General Power of Attorney holder and Manager of M/s Nilgiri Plantation Limited. He is accused of illegally possessing 0.130 CFT of Rosewood (Bite). FIR is registered in FOC No.3/2016 against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 17-A, 29, 50, 51 r/w Section 2(15), (26) of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 and Sections 104-A r/w Section 2(7), 15(15), 20 and 104D of Forest Act, 1963 and r/w Sections 127-a, 144, 145 r/w Section 165 of Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the prosecution of the petitioner is illegal on two counts. Firstly, the petitioner is not the owner of the aforesaid premises wherein the above Rosewood billets were stacked. As per Section 158 of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972, without making the company a party, prosecution of the petitioner is not maintainable. Secondly, FIR is registered for the offenses punishable under Sections 17-A, 29, 50, 51 r/w Section 2(15), (26) of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 and Sections 104-A r/w Section 2(7), 15(15), 20 and 104D of Forest Act, 1963 and r/w Sections 127-a, 144, 145 r/w Section 165 of Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969. The only allegation made in the complaint is that at the time of search, 32 pieces of “Bite” reepers measuring 0.130 CFT were found stored in the estate.
Rule 127(6)-A of the Karnataka Forest Rules, permits cutting or felling of “Bite” trees required for bona fide personal use of the owner thereof upto a limit of 350 Cft or 10 Cmtr. In the instant case, there are no allegations whatsoever that the alleged 32 billets were cut or stored by the petitioner. The petitioner has got nothing to do with the seized said billets. In view of the above provision, even the owner of the estate cannot be prosecuted for keeping 0.130 cft billets in his estate. Hence, no offence has been committed by the petitioner warranting his prosecution for the above offences.
3. In support of his case, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision in Sharad Kumar Sanghi –v- Sangita Rane reported in (2015) 12 SCC 781 and the decision of this Court in Sri.Ajay Kharbanda –v- Central Bureau of Investigation (Crl.R.P. No.818/2017 DD 9.02.2018-(Para 7)).
4. Having regard to the above, the prosecution initiated against the petitioner, in my considered view, cannot be sustained. The prosecution is legally unsustainable.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Prosecution initiated against the petitioner in FIR in FOC No.3/2016-17 and consequent proceedings arising thereupon, are hereby quashed.
In view of disposal of the petition, IA-1/2018 does not survive for consideration and is, accordingly disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE ln.