IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8798 OF 2015 BETWEEN:
THE STATE BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560 001 (BY SRI: DILDAR SHIRALLI, HCGP) AND 1. AMEER S/O SULTHAN SAHEB AGED 48 YEARS R/O KUKKARABETTU HOUSE ANANTHADY VILLAGE BANTWAL TALUK-574211 2. THIMMAPPA S/O RAMA POOJARY AGED 40 YEARS R/AT ARLAPADAVU HOUSE PANAJE VILLAGE PUTTUR TALUK-574201 3. RAVI S/O RAMACHANDRA ... PETITIONER AGED 18 YEARS R/AT PADYABETTU HOUSE PANAJE VILLAGE PUTTUR TALUK-574201 ... RESPONDENTS THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 20.08.2015 PASSED BY THE V ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DAKSHINA KANNADA, MANGALURU, SITTING AT PUTTUR, DAKSHINA KANNADA IN CRL.RP.NO.13/2014 CONFIRMING THE ORDER DATED 20.08.2015 PASSED BY THE V ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE., DAKSHINA KANNADA, MANGALURU, SITTING AT PUTTUR, DAKSHINA KANNADA IN CRL.RP.NO.13/2014 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 33(2) (v), 62, 74, 79, 80 OF KARNATAKA FOREST ACT AND SEC.144 R/W SEC.165 OF KARNATAKA FOREST RULES AND SEC.379 OF IPC; AND DIRECT THE TRIAL COURT TO FRAME CHARGES AGAINST THE ACCUSED/RESPONDENTS 33(2) (v), 62, 74, 79, 80 OF KARNATAKA FOREST ACT AND SEC.144 R/W SEC.165 OF KARNATAKA FOREST RULES AND SEC.379 OF IPC.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Heard learned Addl. SPP for the petitioner-State. Perused the records.
State is before this Court aggrieved by the order passed by learned Addl. Civil Judge(Jr.Dn.) & JMFC, Puttur on the application filed by the respondents/accused under section 239 Cr.P.C.
2. Contention of the learned Addl. SPP is that without there being any application by the accused seeking to compound the offence under section 379 of Indian Penal Code, learned magistrate has erred in discharging the accused of the said offence.
3. On going through the order passed by learned magistrate, it is seen that the application was filed by the accused seeking their discharge for the offences under sections 33(2) (v), 62, 71A, 74, 79 and 80 of Karnataka Forest Act and section 144 r/w 165 of Karnataka Forest Rules and section 379 of Indian Penal Code.
4. Insofar as the offences under the provisions of Forest Act are concerned, those offences having already been compounded, respondent was entitled for discharge of the said offences.
5. Insfoar as the offence under Indian Penal Code is concerned, learned magistrate has observed in the order that the prosecution has tagged the said offence alongwith other forest offences, therefore, respondents cannot be vexed for the same offence twice, which indicates that the application was filed seeking discharge of section 379 Indian Penal Code as well and the learned magistrate was conscious of this fact and has passed a considered order which does not call for interference by this Court. Hence, I do not find any merit in the petition.
Consequently, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE *mn/-