Karnataka High Court
State By Subramanya Police Station vs Ibrahim E on 2 December, 2021
Author: V. Srishananda
Bench: V. Srishananda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 02ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.438/2018
BETWEEN:
STATE BY SUBRAMANYA POLICE STATION
DAKSHINA KANNADA
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU-01
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. V. S. VINAYAKA, HCGP)
AND:
IBRAHIM E
S/O MODIDIN KUNHI
R/O DARBE KANTHADKA HOUSE
ALIKE VILLAGE
BANTWAL TALUK-574211
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. ARCHANA K.M., AMICUS CURAIE)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED
UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 OF CR.PC
PRAYING TO 1.SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE
LEARNED V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, D.K., MANGALORE, SITTING AT PUTTUR, D.K.,
2
DATED 06.01.2018, IN CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION
NO.5121/2017, WHEREIN THE REVISIONAL COURT HAS
ALLOWED THE REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE
RESPONDENT AND HAS SET ASIDE THE PROCEEDINGS IN
C.C.NO.406/2016 OF JMFC, SULLIA. 2.CONSEQUENTLY
DIRECT THE LEARNED JMFC, SULLIA TO PROCEED
FURTHER IN C.C.NO.406/2016.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON
FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
Though this matter is listed for admission, with the consent of both the parties, it is taken up for final disposal.
2. Heard Sri. V. S. Vinayaka, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the revision petitioner and Smt. Archana K. M., learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the respondent and perused the records.
3. This revision petition is filed by the state challenging the order passed by the First Appellate Court in Crl.R.P. No.5121/2017 whereby the revision petition is filed by the accused stood allowed by order dated 06.01.2018.
3
4. Brief facts of the case are as under:
Prosecution was launched against the respondent - accused by registering a case in Crime No.101/2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 9, 31, 39, 48A, 50, 51 and 57 of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972, Section 24(c) and 24(d) of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 and Sections 23 and 25 of the Indian Arms Act.
5. A crime came to be registered on account of the report given by Subramanya Village, Sulya Taluk, Dakshina Kannada. After registering the case, a very informant himself conducted the investigation and filed charge sheet against the accused. The trial Magistrate took cognizance of the aforesaid offences and posted the matter for orders on the application seeking discharge of the accused from the aforesaid offences.
6. The accused being aggrieved by the order of taking cognizance of the aforesaid offences, approached the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mangaluru sitting at Puttur, D.K. in Crl.R.P. No.5121/2017 contending 4 that the complainant who is also the Investigating Officer had no authority to register the case against the accused.
7. The complainant also relied on the judgment reported in 2007 Crl.L.Journal 2025 in the case of AMARNATH VYAS Vs. STATE OF A.P. and also few other decisions and contended that the trial Magistrate ought to have taken note of the fact that the complainant had no authority to file a report about the incident.
8. Learned judge in the First Appellate Court while deciding the revision petition, places reliance on the order passed by the co-ordinate bench of this Court in Crl.A. No.2313/2006 in the case of STATE BY RURAL POLICE, CHINTHAMANI Vs. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY disposed of on 25.09.2012 and held that there was no proper compliance to the provisions of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 and allowed the revision petition filed by the accused. However, liberty was also given for the Forest Officers to proceed against the accused under the provisions of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 in 5 accordance with law. Being aggrieved by the same, the State is in revision.
9. Learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently contended that the learned judge in the First Appellate Court did not take note of the notification issued by the State Government dated 16.10.1973 where-under, in respect of the offences punishable under Section 50(1) of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972. The PSI not below the rank of the Police Sub-Inspector is authorized to file a complaint. He also contended that since the PSI was authorized to file a complaint, the complaint filed by the PSI - Sri. Nagesh of Subramanya Police, Sulya Taluk is just and proper and therefore, the learned judge in the First Appellate Court ought not to have terminated the proceedings in C.C. No.406/2016. He also contended that the learned judge in the First Appellate Court was only concerned with taking cognizance and issuing process. Therefore, the proceedings should not have been terminated against the revision petitioner. 6
10. Per contra, Smt. Archana, learned amicus curiae contended that the notification no doubt authorizes the PSI but the case on hand after filing the report, the very PSI himself has admitted the entire investigation and filed a charge sheet. Therefore, before taking cognizance of the said aspect of the matter, the trial Magistrate ought to have taken note of the said aspect of the matter and should have returned the charge sheet for further investigation or at least should have issued the process against the accused and therefore, supported the impugned order. She also pointed out that liberty is given for the Forest Officials to proceed against the accused by complying the provisions of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 and therefore, no prejudice is caused to the State and therefore, sought for dismissal of the revision petition.
11. Perused the records.
12. No doubt from the materials on record the PSI
- Nagesh of Subramanya Police was authorized to file a compliant as per the notification dated 16.10.1973 7 however, after filing the report, he should not have investigated the matter by himself causing serious prejudice to the rights of the accused. Further, nothing prevented the PSI to take the formal complaint from the Forest Officials under the provisions of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 and should have continued with the investigation in accordance with law.
13. Having not done, just because that the PSI had the power to file a report would not take away the inherent defect in the charge sheet accordingly no case is made out by the State to interfere with the order passed by the learned judge in the First Appellate Court in Crl. R. P. No.5121/2017. Hence, the following:
ORDER i. The Criminal Revision Petition sans merit and is hereby dismissed.
ii. However, the prosecution is at liberty to proceed against the accused in accordance with law as is 8 reserved by the learned judge in the First Appellate Court by complying the provisions of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972. iii. The services rendered by the learned amicus curiae is placed on record and the honorarium is fixed at Rs.5,000/-.
Sd/-
JUDGE VBS