IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.6704/2014 BETWEEN:
SRI. S.M. NIRANJANMURTHY S/O. S.M. MALLAVEERAPPA AGED 54 YEARS R/O. S.L.N. ROAD KANAKAPURA TOWN KANAKAPURA-562 117. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRAKASH B.S., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. RANGE FOREST OFFICER KANAKAPURA TOWN BRANCH KANAKAPURA RANGE KANAKAPURA-562 117 RAMNAGAR DISTRICT.
2. DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS BANGALORE RURAL DIVISION ARANYA BHAVANA, 18TH CROSS MALLESHWARAM BANGALORE-560 003.
3. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF FORESTS ENVIRONMENT AND ECOLOGY M.S. BUILDING BANGALORE-560 001. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL. SPP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.123/2007 INITIATED UNDER FOC NO.16/06-07 DATED: 29.05.2006 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. J.M.F.C., KANAKAPURA, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT THERETO.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Additional SPP appearing for respondents. Perused the records.
2. The only contention urged in the petition is that the offences alleged against the petitioner are non- cognizable offences. The case has been registered against the petitioner and investigation has been conducted without prior authorization mandated under Sec.155(2) of Cr.P.C.
3. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment of this Court in Crl.P.No.3889/2007 dated 19.08.2009, wherein on identical facts the prosecution of the accused therein under Sections 24(g), 24(gg), 62, 73(d) of the Karnataka Forest Act,1963 read with Rule 144 of the Karnataka Forest Act,1969 and Section 2(ii) of Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and Rule 3(3) of Karnataka Mines and Minerals Concession Rule 1994, was quashed for non compliance of the mandatory requirement under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C.
4. In view of the above position of law, petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, petition is allowed.
The proceedings in C.C.No.123/2007 initiated against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 6, 24(f), 24(g),(gg),(h), 73(d) of Karnataka Forest Act 1963, Rule 144 of the Karnataka Forest Act,1969 and Sec. 2 of Forest Conservation Act, 1980 are quashed.
Liberty is reserved to the complainant to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law after compliance of the requirement under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C.
Sd/- JUDGE JS/- CT:SG