IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.10124 OF 2017 BETWEEN:
SRI NANDISHA C J S/O JAYARAMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, SURVEYOR V R NAIK BUILDING, KUTYAR TEMPLE ROAD SNATHEKATTE BELTHANGAY DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-574214 WORKING AS SURVEYOR AT TALUK OFFICE BELTHANGADI DISTRICT:DAKSHINA KANNADA-574214 (BY SRI: P N HEGDE, ADVOCATE) AND 1. SRI RAGHAVENDRA K DEPUTY RANGE FOREST OFFICE KADIGAL MALE UNIT VENOORU RANGE VENOORU BELTHANGADI DISTRICT:DAKSHINA KANNADA-574214.
... PETITIONER 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE VENOORU POLICE STATION, BELTHANGADI TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560001.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL. SPP) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.381/2017 (IN CR.NO.87/2016, VENOOR POLICE STATION, BELTHANGADI TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT) PENDING ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., BELTHANGADY, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 379, 465 AND 167 OF IPC AND UNDER SECTION 71 OF KARNATAKA FOREST ACT AND RULE 144 OF KARNATAKA FOREST RULES.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Addl. SPP for respondents-State. Perused the records.
2. Petitioner herein was the surveyor of Taluk Office, Belthangadi, Belthangady Taluk, Dakshina Kannada. Based on the application submitted by one Suhas Ballal seeking to cut two Bogi Trees, petitioner prepared a sketch demarcating the properties wherein the said trees were located. According to the prosecution, contrary to said sketch, accused No.2 cut and removed two standing trees from forest land comprised in Sy.No.263/2C.
3. Undisputedly, the sketch was prepared by the petitioner herein in respect of Sy.No.263/1. There is no dispute from any quarters that Sy.No.263/1 is a private land and not a forest land. Under the said circumstances, if for any reason, accused No.1 has cut and removed standing trees from Sy.No.263/2C contrary to sketch prepared by the petitioner/accused No.2, he cannot be held responsible for the act committed by accused No.1.
4. Learned Addl. SPP appearing for respondents-State has referred to the second survey sketch prepared by the petitioner and would contend that petitioner has furnished false report showing the trees having been located in Sy.No.263/2C. I have perused said sketch. It is specifically mentioned therein that the trees were cut from Sy.No.263/2C, which indicates that said sketch was prepared after commission of the offence.
Therefore, the contention of learned Addl. SPP that the trees were cut by accused No.1 based on the sketch furnished by accused No.2 cannot be accepted. Consequently, I do not find that the petitioner herein could be prosecuted for the alleged offences punishable under sections 167, 465 and 379 of IPC, section 71(A) of The Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 and Section 144 of The Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969. Having regard to the material produced by the investigating agency, the prosecution of the petitioner for the above offences is not substantiated with any prima-facie documents.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Proceedings in C.C.No.381/2017 on the file of learned Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC Court, Belthangady, Dakshina Kannada is quashed only insofar as petitioner/accused No.2 is concerned. In view of disposal of the main matter, I.A.No.1/19 for additional documents does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, it is dismissed.
*mn/-
Sd/- JUDGE