Karnataka High Court
Shri. Irappa S/O Bandeppa Jirali vs The State Of Karnataka on 4 September, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:10046
CRL.P No. 101559 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M.G.UMA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101559 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
1. SHRI. IRAPPA
S/O. BANDEPPA JIRALI,
AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O.: GOVINDINNI ARASI, TQ.: BILAGI,
DIST.: BAGALKOT - 587 116
2. SHRI. PAVAN
S/O. IRAPPA JIRALI,
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC.: BUSINESS,
R/O.: GOVINDINNI ARASI, TQ.: BILAGI,
DIST.: BAGALKOT - 587 116
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SHIVRAJ S BALLOLI.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER,
Digitally
signed by
VINAYAKA
FOREST MOBILE SQUAD,
VINAYAKA B V
BV Date:
BELAGAVI DIVISION,
2023.09.13
16:10:43
BELAGAVI - 590 001
+0530
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH,
DHARWAD - 580 001
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI: PRAVEENA Y. REDDYAVARU, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 482 OF CR.P.C.
SEEKING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND QUASH THE ENTIRE
PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN C.C.NO.
98/2023 (OLD CASE NO. FOREST CASE NO. 07/2020-21) PENDING
ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMF, BAGALKOTE
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:10046
CRL.P No. 101559 of 2023
FOR THE COMMISSION OF ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/SEC. 2(36), 9,
39, 40, 43, 48A, 49C, 50 AND 51 OF THE WILD LIFE PROTECTION
ACT, IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED NO. 1 AND 2 ARE
CONCERNED.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 are before this Court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them in Forest Case (FOC) No.7/2020-21, pending before the learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Bagalkot (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court' for brevity), for the offences punishable under Sections 9, 39, 40, 2(36), 48A, 49B, 49C, 50 and 51 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 (for short 'the Act').
2. Brief facts of the case are that, the Range Forest Officer, Forest Mobile Squad, Belagavi, filed private complaint against accused Nos.1 to 4, alleging commission of the offence as stated above. It is alleged that the complainant received credible information regarding hunting of the wild animals i.e. Larze Bengal Monitor Lizard penis (Varanus Bengalensis) and sea fans (Gorgonian), transported and kept in captivity for the purpose of selling the same illegally. On the basis of said -3- NC: 2023:KHC-D:10046 CRL.P No. 101559 of 2023 credible information, he along with his staff and panchas held a raid on the shop belonging to accused No.1 in Bagalkote and found a carton box, wherein he found to have kept 11 larze Bengal monitor lizard penis and 503 sea fans for the purpose of selling to the general public, without any license or permit. When accused No.1 was enquired, he revealed the name of accused No.2 and accordingly, the complainant held a raid over the shop that was belonging to accused No.2 at Bilagi and found 66 larze Bengal monitor lizard penis. Accused No.2 gave information regarding accused No.3 and accordingly, complainant held a raid over the premises belonging to accused No.3 at Jamakhandi, who admitted that he had provided the larze Bengal monitor lizard penis and sea fans to accused Nos.1 and 2. He revealed the name of accused No.4, who was also at Jamakhandi, who had kept 2 larze Bengal monitor lizard penis in his two wheeler which was seized under the seizure mahazar. Thus, it is stated that 79 larze Bengal monitor lizard penis and 503 sea fans were seized from the captivity of accused Nos.1 to 4, who have committed the offences as stated above.
-4-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:10046 CRL.P No. 101559 of 2023
3. The trial Court took cognizance of the offence against accused Nos.1 to 4 for the above said offences. Petitioner/accused Nos.1 and 2 are before this Court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them before the trial Court.
4. Heard Sri Shivaraj S.Balloli learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Praveena Y. Reddyavaru, learned HCGP for respondent-State. Perused the materials on record.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as per Sections 50(4) and 50(5) of the Act, the animal and the materials seized by the authorized officer was not produced before the learned Magistrate and therefore, there is violation of the mandatory requirement of law, which is sufficient to quash the criminal proceedings against the accused and accordingly, he prays for allowing the revision petition.
6. Per contra, learned HCGP for the respondent draws attention of the Court to Form-20 submitted by the Assistant Conservator of Forest before the Jurisdictional Magistrate reporting seizure of the animals and the materials and seeking permission to retain the same till further orders. He further -5- NC: 2023:KHC-D:10046 CRL.P No. 101559 of 2023 submits that the materials that are seized from the custody of the accused were subjected to FSL examination and report was also called for. Accordingly, the Scientific Officer has examined the materials and submitted the report. Under such circumstances, he prays for dismissal of the petition. He also submits that the trial before the trial Court has already begun and notices were issued to the prosecution witnesses. The accused have not filed any application seeking their discharge. Under such circumstances, he prays for dismissal of the petition.
7. In view of the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is;
"Whether the impugned order passed by the trial Court suffers from infirmity and calls for interference by this Court?"
My answer to the above point is in the 'Negative' for the following;
-6-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:10046 CRL.P No. 101559 of 2023 REASONS
8. The materials on record disclose that the petitioners have approached this Court seeking similar relief in Crl.P.No.101018/2021. The said petition came to be dismissed on merits vide order dated 23.07.2021. Thereafter, the present petition is filed raising fresh ground, seeking to quash the criminal proceedings against the accused.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the mandatory requirement of law as contemplated under Section 50(5) of the Act were not followed by the Investigating Officer. Learned HCGP has rightly pointed out the fact of reporting seizure of animals and other materials to the learned Magistrate in Form-20. Certified copy of the same produced by learned counsel for the petitioner discloses that the learned Magistrate has endorsed on the said form and permitted the Assistant Conservator of Forest to detain the seized materials till further orders. Under such circumstances, I do not find any substance in the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner.
-7-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:10046 CRL.P No. 101559 of 2023
10. It is stated that trial has already begun and summons were issued to the witnesses. The petitioners have not made any application before the trial Court, seeking discharge. However, this is the successive petition filed before this Court seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings, which is also without any merits. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the 'Negative' and proceed to pass the following;
ORDER The criminal petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE PN