Karnataka High Court
Annappa vs The State-Through The on 1 February, 2019
Author: Aravind Kumar
Bench: Aravind Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 01ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No.8713/2018
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.8652/2018, 8708/2018,
8711/2018 AND 8707/2018
IN CRL.P NO.8713/2018
BETWEEN:
ANNAPPA
S/O RANGAIAH
MAJOR, AGRICULTURIST
R/O NO.56
BISAGNITMUT
CHIKMAGALURU TALUK
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.P.P.HEGDE, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE STATE-THROUGH THE
RANGE FOREST OFFICER
BHADRA WILD LIFE RANGE
THANKIEBAILU
CHIKKAMAGALURU
DISTRICT-577 115
2. COMPETENT AUTHORITY-CUM-
CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS
2
AND DIRECTOR
BHADRA TIGER RESERVE,
CHIKKAMAGALURU,
CHIKKAMAGALURU
DISTRICT-577 115
NOS.1 AND 2 ARE REPRESENTED BY
THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU-575 001
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.S.RACHAIAH, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
CR.P.C PRAYING TO (1) QUASH THE ORDER DATED 31.10.2018,
PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2, REJECTING THE
APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN FOR RELEASE
OF VEHICLE BEARING REGN.NO.KA-18-M-0551 SEIZED IN
CONNECTION WITH FOC NO.2/2016-17 OF RANGE FOREST
OFFICER, BHADRA WILD LIFE RANGE, THANIKEBAILU, NOW
PENDING IN C.C.NO.188/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL
JUDGE AND 1ST ADDITIONAL JMFC AND (2) PASS APPROPRIATE
ORDER/DIRECTION DIRECTING RESPONDENT NO.2 RELEASING
THE VEHICLE BEARING REGN.NO.KA-18-M-0551, SEIZED IN
CONNECTION WITH FOC NO.2/2016-17 OF RANGE FOREST
OFFICER, BHADRA WILD LIFE RANGE, THANIKEBAILU, NOW
PENDING IN C.C.NO.188/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL
JUDGE AND 1ST ADDITIONAL JMFC.
IN CRL.P NO.8652/2018
BETWEEN
SRI ATHAR AHAMED
SON OF LATE MOHAMMED USUF
AGED 67 YEARS,
R/AT HIBA COFFEE LANDA,
UDAYAVARA POST,
3
SAKALESHPURA TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT-574118.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.P.P.HEGDE, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE STATE-THROUGH THE
RANGE FOREST OFFICER,
BHADRA WILD LIFE RANGE,
THANKIEBAILU,
CHIKKAMAGALURU
DISTRICT-577 101.
2. COMPETENT AUTHORITY-CUM-
CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS AND
DIRECTOR,
BHADRA TIGER RESERVE,
CHIKKAMAGALURU,
CHIKKAMAGALURU
DISTRICT-577 115
NOS.1 AND 2 ARE REPRESENTED BY
THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU-575 001
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.S.RACHAIAH, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
CR.P.C PRAYING TO (A) QUASH THE ORDER DATED 31.10.2018
PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IN PROCEEDINGS BEARING
F.O.C.NO.2/2016-17 AND (B) PASS APPROPRIATE
ORDER/DIRECTION DIRECTING RESPONDENTS FOR
RELEASING THE VEHICLE BOLERO BEARING NO. KA-46-6062
AND MOBILE PHONE BEARING SIM NO.9845862340 SEIZED IN
CONNECTION WITH F.O.C.NO.2/2016-17 OF RANGE FOREST
OFFICER, BHADRA WILD LIFE RANGE, THANIKEBAILU, NOW
4
PENDING IN C.C.NO.188/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL
JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL JMFC, TARIKERE TO THE INTERIM
CUSTODY OF THE PETITIONER.
IN CRL.P NO.8708/2018
BETWEEN
SHRI RAFEEQ
S/O MIR ASAN ALI
AGED 42 YEARS,
AGA ABDULLAH STREET,
SERPANTIA STREET,
RICHMOND TOWN,
BANGALORE-560025.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.P.P.HEGDE, ADV.)
AND
1. THE STATE-THROUGH THE
RANGE FOREST OFFICER,
BHADRA WILD LIFE RANGE,
THANKIEBAILU,
CHIKKAMAGALURU
DISTRICT-577 115.
2. COMPETENT AUTHORITY-CUM-
CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS AND
DIRECTOR, BHADRA TIGER RESERVE,
CHIKKAMAGALURU,
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577 115
NOS.1 AND 2 ARE REPRESENTED BY
THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU-575 001
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.S.RACHAIAH, HCGP)
5
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
CR.P.C PRAYING TO (1) QUASH THE ORDER DATED 31.10.2018
PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2, REJECTING THE APPLICATION
FILED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN FOR RELEASE OF GUN
LICENSE SEIZED IN CONNECTION WITH FOC.NO.2/2016-17 OF
RANGE FOREST OFFICER, BHADRA WILD LIFE RANGE,
THANIKEBAILU, NOW PENDING IN C.C.NO.188/2017 ON THE
FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL JMFC, TARIKERE
AND (2) PASS APPROPRIATE ORDER/DIRECTION DIRECTING
RESPONDENTS FOR RELEASING THE GUN LICENSE SEIZED IN
CONNECTION WITH FOC.NO.2/2016-17 OF RANGE FOREST
OFFICER, BHADRA WILD LIFE RANGE, THANIKEBAILU, NOW
PENDING IN C.C.NO.188/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL
JUDGE AND ADDITIONAL JMFC, TARIKERE TO THE INTERIM
CUSTODY OF THE PETITIONER.
IN CRL.P NO.8711/2018
BETWEEN
SRI MUSTAQ AHAMED
S/O LATE H M ABDUL MAJEED,
AGED 52 YEARS,
COFFEE PALNTER
R/AT UDAYAVARA POST,
SAKALESHPURA TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT-573 134.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.P.P.HEGDE, ADV.)
AND
1. THE STATE-THROUGH THE
RANGE FOREST OFFICER,
BHADRA WILD LIFE RANGE,
THANKIEBAILU,
CHIKKAMAGALURU
DISTRICT.
6
2. COMPETENT AUTHORITY-CUM-
CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS AND
DIRECTOR,
BHADRA TIGER RESERVE,
CHIKKAMAGALURU,
CHIKKAMAGALURU
DISTRICT-577 115
NOS.1 AND 2 ARE REPRESENTED BY
THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU-575 001
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.S.RACHAIAH, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
CR.P.C PRAYING TO (A) QUASH THE ORDER DATED 31.10.2018
PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2, REJECTING THE APPLICATION
FILED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN FOR RELEASE OF VEHICLE
BEARING REGN.NO.KA-04-MF-4265 AND THE APPLE MOBILE
NO.6.16GV GOLDEN SIM BEARING NO.9448005830 SEIZED IN
CONNECTION WITH F.O.C.NO.2/2016-17 OF RANGE FOREST
OFFICER, BHADRA WILD LIFE RANGE, THANIKEBAILU AND
(B) PASS APPROPRIATE ORDER/DIRECTION DIRECTING
RESPONDENTS FOR RELEASING THE VEHICLE BEARING
REGISTRATION NO.KA-04-MF-4265 AND MOBILE PHONE
BEARING SIM NO.9448005830 SEIZED IN CONNECTION WITH
F.O.C.NO.2/2016-17 OF RANGE FOREST OFFICER, BHADRA
WILD LIFE RANGE, THANIKEBAILU.
IN CRL.P NO.8707/2018
BETWEEN
MR. MOHASIN
S/O. SHADER ALI, MAJOR,
AGRICULTURIST,
R/O. NO.7, 5TH CROSS,
VANNERPET LAYOUT,
7
VIVEKNAGAR POST,
BENGALURU-560 047.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.P.P.HEGDE, ADV.)
AND
1. THE STATE-THROUGH THE
RANGE FOREST OFFICER,
BHADRA WILD LIFE RANGE,
THANKIEBAILU,
CHIKKAMAGALURU
DISTRICT-577115.
2. COMPETENT AUTHORITY-CUM-
CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS AND
DIRECTOR,
BHADRA TIGER RESERVE,
CHIKKAMAGALURU,
CHIKKAMAGALURU
DISTRICT-577 115
NOS.1 AND 2 ARE REPRESENTED BY
THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU-575 001
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.S.RACHAIAH, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
CR.P.C PRAYING TO (1) QUASH THE ORDER DATED 31.10.2018,
PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2, REJECTING THE APPLICATION
FILED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN FOR RELEASE OF VEHICLE
BEARING REGN.NO.KA-03-MM-9188 SEIZED IN CONNECTION
WITH FOC NO.2/2016-17, OF RANGE FOREST OFFICER,
BHADRA WILD LIFE RANGE, THANIKEBAILU AND (2) PASS
APPROPRIATE ORDER/DIRECTION DIRECTING RESPONDENTS
FOR RELEASING THE VEHICLE BEARING REGN.NO.KA-03-MM-
8
9188 SEIZED IN CONNECTION WITH FOC NO.2/2016-17, OF
RANGE FOREST OFFICER, BHADRA WILD LIFE RANGE,
THANIKEBAILU, TO THE INTERIM CUSTODY OF THE
PETITIONER.
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Fact germane for consideration in these cases are as under:
On a credible information received, Forest Officials on 01.01.2017 while checking vehicles at Kempannugundi gate, Chickmagaluru District at about 5.00 a.m. had found in the vehicles in question a dead body of the Kadave (stag) in the storage place of luggage and on enquiry, they came to know that inmates of vehicles had visited Chickmagaluru Forest area to celebrate New year and had hunted animals in question near Nethi Chowk by shooting them from a gun and as such, criminal case came to be registered against petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 9, 27, 31, 39 of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 and Sections 71 (a), 50, 51, 52, 55 of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 (for short 9 'the Act'). The vehicles/Mobile Phones/Gun license which were carried by petitioners also came to be seized.
2. Insofar as Crl.P.Nos.8652/2018 and 8711/2018 are concerned, Competent Authority passed an order refusing to release the vehicles and thereafter, petitioner in Crl.P.No.8652/2018 had approached this Court for release of vehicles which came to be rejected by an order dated 27.09.2018 passed in Crl.P.No.5684/2018 with a direction to respondent No.2 therein to reconsider petitioner's application in accordance with law. Whereas, in Crl.P.No.8711/2018, learned Magistrate has rejected the application on the ground that petitioner had approached this Court in the above said Criminal petition i.e., Crl.P.No.5684/2018 which came to be disposed of as observed herein above.
3. It is pursuant to the direction by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, an order came to be passed on 31.10.2018 rejecting the application of petitioners on the ground that direction issued by this Court was on the 10 premise of an argument having been canvassed for release of vehicle under Section 71(A) of the Karnataka Forest Act and there was no direction sought for release of the vehicle under Section 39 (D) of the Act.
4. Insofar as Crl.P.Nos.8707/2018, 8713/2018 & 8708/2018 are concerned, the Competent Authority by order dated 31.10.2018 has rejected the prayer for release of vehicles on same ground as stated herein above.
5. Sri.P.P.Hedge, learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that Authorities have no power to seize the vehicles in question in the light of the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Principle Chief Conservator of Forest and Anr. Vs. J.K.Johnson & Ors rendered on 17.10.2011 in Civil Appeal No.2534/2011 and as such, he prays for release of vehicles unconditionally.
6. Per contra, learned Government Advocate submits that Hon'ble Apex Court in J.K.Johnson's case has referred to 11 Madhukar Rao's case reported in (2008) 14 SCC 624 which arose out of the Full bench judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court reported in 2000 (2) MPHT 445 to contend that the expression of 'seizure' and 'confiscating' connotes different meaning and as such, they cannot be understood conjunctively but disjunctively. Hence, he prays for dismissing the petitions.
7. Having regard to the above stated facts and rival contentions raised, it would suffice to say that Hon'ble Apex Court in J.K.Johnson case referred to supra having referred to Madhukar Rao's case rendered by the Full Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court which was in the background of Section 39(1)(d) of Wild Life (Protection) Act, whereunder it came to be held that any property including vehicle seized on accusation or suspicion of a commission of offence under 1972 Act can be released by the learned Magistrate pending trial in accordance with Section 50(4) read with Section 451 of the Code and the seizure of any property including the 12 vehicle on the charge of Commission of offence would not make such property to be property of the State under Section 39 (1) (d) of the Act has arrived at a conclusion that Section 39 (1) (d) which is relevant for confiscating would come into play only after Competent Court of jurisdiction found that accusation and allegations made against the accused were true and recorded a finding that seized article was, as a matter of fact, used in the commission of an offence.
8. In fact, Hon'ble Apex Court in J.K.Johnson referred to supra has arrived at above stated conclusion by taking into consideration Madhukar Rao's case (Full Bench judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court) which had been affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the State of Madhya Pradesh & Others vs. Madhukar Rao reported in (2008) 14 SCC 624.
9. Hon'ble Apex Court in Madhukar Rao's case at paragraph 19 has clearly held that sub-section (2) of Section 50 of Wild Life Protection Act having been deleted, an 13 aggrieved person has no option but to approach the Magistrate directly for interim release of the seized vehicle."
10. In that view of the matter, this Court is of considered view that it would suffice if liberty is granted to the petitioners to approach jurisdictional Magistrate to seek for release of vehicles/Mobile Phones/Gun license.
Hence, the following:
ORDER
i) Criminal Petition Nos.8713/2018, 8652/2018, 8708/2018, 8711/2018 & 8707/2018 are hereby allowed in part.
ii) Petitioners are granted liberty to file an application under Section 451 of Cr.P.C for release of vehicles/Mobile Phones/Gun license before Jurisdictional Court and in the event of such an application being filed, learned Magistrate shall dispose of the same expeditiously at any rate within ten days from the date of filing of such application by keeping in mind the observations made herein above as well as observations made 14 by Hon'ble Apex Court in J.K.Johnson case and Madhukar case referred to herein supra.
iii) In the event of learned Magistrate arriving at a conclusion that vehicles are to be released, he would at liberty to impose such conditions as deemed fit.
iv) It is made clear that learned Magistrate while considering application that may be filed by petitioners afresh shall not be influenced by its earlier order or any observations made by this Court in the earlier order passed.
In view of allowing of the petitions, I.A.No.1/2018 for stay filed in all these petitions would not survive for consideration. Hence, they are rejected.
SD/-
JUDGE VM CT:HR