Karnataka High Court
B Rama Subba Reddy vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 April, 2022
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
-1-
CRL.P No. 101250 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101250 OF 2022 (482-)
BETWEEN:
1. B RAMA SUBBA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
OCC. DIRECTOR,
VNC COLLEGE, SWATI NILAYA
BASAVERWARA EXTENSION, HOSPETE
2. GIRISH K.M NANDIYAL
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCC. DGM
NO. 451/1600, DIVYA NILAYA
6TH CROSS,
BASAVERWARA EXTENSION, HOSPETE
3. SALIGRAM PRASAD
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCC. MANAGER,
P-22, CITY CENTRE,
BOKORO STEEL CITY,
Digitally
JHARKHAND-827004
signed by V
N BADIGER
VN Location:
BADIGER DHARWAD
Date:
2022.04.21
10:56:23
+0530
4. G. VEERAREDDY
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
OCC. MINING ENGINEER INCHARGE,
POST. SUNNAPURAL PALLI,
P O KHOTH PALLI, DIST. KADAPA
STATE. ANDHRA PRADESH
5. RAVIKUMAR KARNAM
ABED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
-2-
CRL.P No. 101250 of 2022
OCC. ASSISTANT MANAGER,
R/O. K. RAM MURTHI 30335
SUNMUI STREET, PRODTHUR,
DIST. KADAPA
STATE. ANDHARA PRADESH
6. M. OBALA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
OCC ASSISTANT MANAGER,
R/O POST. AMAKA PALLI,
PO KHOTH PALLI,
TQ. PULIVENDLA, DIST. KADAPA
STATE ANDHARA PRADESH
7. VEERUPAKSH KAKANUR
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
OCC. MINES PORMAN,
C/O SHIVAPPA KAKANUR,
POST. KALKOND, TQ. SIGGAN,
DIST. HAVERI
8. M V SUNDARESH
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
OCC. MINES PORMAN,
C/O. S K SOMASUNDAR ,
BACK SIDE OF RAJ MAHAL EXTENSION,
LANGANI MANDIR,
TQ AND DIST, SHIMOGGA
9. MADIG RAMANAYYA M RANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
OCC. MINES PORMAN,
POST. ANKIREDDYPALLI,
TQ. KOLIMIGUNDLA, DIST. KARNUL,
STATE.ANDHARA PRADESH
10. V N SURESH BABU
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
-3-
CRL.P No. 101250 of 2022
OCC. MINESMAIT,
SAROJA S BALLARY ROAD,
BEHIND ITI COLLEGE ROAD,
DHOBI STEET, HOSPETE
11. V GOPAL REDDI S/O P NARAYAN REDDI
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCC. MINESMAIT,
R/O HOUSE NO.4-200-425,
D R Y S NAGAR, TQ. DHONE,
DIST. KARNUL, STATE. ANDHRA PRADESH
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. ARAVIND D KULKARNI.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH RANGE FOREST OFFICER, KALLAHALLI
GASTU, HOSAPETE DIVISION, BALLARI,
REPRSENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATKA
DHARWAD BENCH
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. RAMESH CHIGARI, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 482 OF CR.P.C.
SEEKING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND QUASH THE ORDER
DATED 05.07.2017 IN C.C.NO.890/2017 ON THE FILE OF PRL.
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC HOSAPETE, FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SEC. 24(a), (d), (f), (g), (gg), (h), 80, 82,
82B, 109 OF THE KARNATAKA FOREST ACT, UNDER RULE 144,
165, OF THE KARNATAKA FOREST ACT AND UNDER SECTION
4(1), 4(IA) AND 21 OF M.M.R.D. ACT AND ALL FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO THE SAID ORDER.
-4-
CRL.P No. 101250 of 2022
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The learned High Court Government Pleader accepts notice for the respondent.
2. A charge sheet is filed by the Range Forest Officer alleging that the petitioners-accused after encroaching the forest land, destroyed the trees and are carrying on the mining activities illegally. The learned Magistrate by order dated 27.09.2017, took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 24(a), (d), (f), (g), (gg), (h), 73(d), 80, 82, 83B, 109 of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963, and Sections 4, 4(1), 4(1A), 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for short, 'the MMDR Act'), and issued summons to the petitioners-accused.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the alleged offence has taken place on 19.11.2012, but cognizance of the offences -5- CRL.P No. 101250 of 2022 alleged against the petitioners is taken by the learned Magistrate on 27.09.2017 after the expiry of the time specified under Section 468 of Cr.P.C. He further submits that taking cognizance of the offences alleged to have been committed under the provisions of the MMDR Act on the basis of the report submitted by the Range Forest Officer is one without authority of law since Section 22 of the MMDR Act specifies that cognizance shall be taken upon a complaint in writing made by an officer authorized in this behalf by the Central Government or the State Government. Hence, he seeks for quashing the impugned proceedings as against the petitioners-accused Nos.5 to
16.
4. The learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State submits that the charge sheet material clearly discloses that the petitioners have committed the aforesaid offences and the learned Magistrate after perusing the charge sheet has rightly -6- CRL.P No. 101250 of 2022 taken cognizance of the aforesaid offences alleged against the petitioners.
5. I have examined the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
6. The FIR was registered against the petitioners- accused by the Range Forest Officer and after conducting investigation filed charge sheet on 18.10.2016. The offences alleged against the petitioners are punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years and as such, cognizance for the aforesaid offences against the petitioners ought to have been taken by the learned Magistrate within two years from the date of registration of the FIR by the Range Forest Officer. In the instant case, the FIR was lodged on 19.11.2012, and the charge sheet was filed on 18.10.2016. However, the cognizance was taken by the Magistrate on 27.09.2019 after expiry of two years from the date of filing of the charge sheet against the petitioners-accused and the same is one barred by -7- CRL.P No. 101250 of 2022 limitation as specified under Section 468 of Cr.P.C. Hence, cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate for the offences alleged against the petitioners after the expiry of two years is one without authority of law.
7. The charge sheet is filed against the petitioners- accused for the offences alleged to have been committed under the provisions of the MMDR Act. Section 22 of the MMDR Act, specifies that the Court/Magistrate can take cognizance of the offences punishable under the said Act only on a complaint in writing by an officer authorized by the Central Government or the State Government. In the present case, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance against the petitioners for the offences alleged to have been committed under the said Act on a report submitted by the Range Forest Officer and the same is not permissible in law.
8. Section 82B of the Karnataka Forest Act specifies that if a person committing an offence under this -8- CRL.P No. 101250 of 2022 Act is a company, the company as well as every person in charge of, and responsible to the company for the conduct of its business at the time of the commission of the offence shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. In the present case, charge sheet is filed under Section 82B of the Karnataka Forest Act which deals with the offences committed by the Company. The petitioners herein are stated to be the employees of a registered partnership firm and they cannot be held vicariously guilty of the offences committed under the provisions of the said Act, since the registered partnership firm has not been arraigned as an accused to the proceedings. Hence, the impugned proceedings initiated only against the petitioners who are employees of the firm is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER The criminal petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings in C.C. No.890/2017 pending on the file of the -9- CRL.P No. 101250 of 2022 Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosapete, insofar as it relates to the petitioners herein, is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE YAN