Karnataka High Court
Kuppanamada Poonacha vs State Of Karnataka on 24 February, 2022
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6127 OF 2019
BETWEEN
1 . KUPPANAMADA POONACHA
S/O LATE PONNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
R/O PARAGHATTAGERI
BERUNANI POST
VIRAJPET TALUK
KODAGU-571249
2 . ANNALAMADA ROBIN @ THIMMAIAH
S/O LATE T BHEEMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
R/O BERUNANI POST
VIRAJPET TALUK
KODAGU-571249
3 . KUPPANAMADA PREETHAM
S/O LATE DEVAIAH
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
R/O BERUNANI POST
VIRAJPET TALUK
KODAGU-571249
4 . ANNALAMADA HARISH @
GUNDU @ SHASHIDHARA
S/O LATE DEVAIAH
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS
R/O BERUNANI POST
-:2:-
VIRAJPET TALUK
KODAGU-571249. ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI BHARATH KUMAR V, ADVOCATE)
AND
STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
SOUTHERN RANGE, MYSORE
REPRESENTED BY THE STATE
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU-560001. ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI RENUKARADHYA.R.D, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
482 OF CR.PC. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
06/07/2019 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE COURT OF II
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KODAUGU-
MADIKERI, SITTING AT VIRAJPET, IN MATTER BEARING
SESSIONS CASE NO.56/13 AND CONSEQUENTLY,
DISCHARGE THE PETITIONER HEREIN OF ALLEGED
OFFENCES UNDER SECTION 9, 27, 31 R/W SECTION 51 OF
THE WILD LIFE PROTECTION ACT IN MATTER BEARING
SESSIONS CASE NO.56/13 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE
HON'BLE COURT OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, KODAGU-MADIKERI, SITTING AT
VIRAJPET (ANNEXUER-A).
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The brother of the deceased registered the first information report against the petitioners for the offences -:3:- punishable under Sections 302, 323, 324, 506 r/w 120B of IPC and Section 9, 27, 31 r/w Section 51 of the Wildlife Protection Act 1972 and Section 25(1-B) (a) of the Arms Act, 1959. The Police after investigation filed the charge sheet against the petitioners for the aforesaid offences. Taking exception to filing of the charge sheet insofar it relates to offences punishable under Section 9,27, 31 r/w Section 51 of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, this petition is filed.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the cognizance insofar as it relates to the offences punishable under Sections 9, 27, 31 r/w Section 51 of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 can be taken by the Court only on a complaint in writing by the officer concerned. Hence, he submits that cognizance taken by the learned Sessions Judge on the basis of the Police report is without authority of law.
3. On the other hand, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State would justify filing of the charge sheet against the petitioners -:4:-
4. I have examined the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
5. Charge sheet has been filed against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 323, 324, 506 r/w 120B of IPC and under Sections 9, 27, 31 r/w 51 of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972. The learned Sessions Judge has taken cognizance and issued process to the petitioners. The petitioners filed an application for discharge under Section 237 of Cr.P.C. The said application came to be rejected by the learned Sessions Judge against which this present petition.
6. Section 55 of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 specifies that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under the Wildlife Protection Act, except on a complaint lodged by the Competent Authority specified under the Wildlife Protection Act.
7. In the present case, the learned Sessions Judge has taken cognizance on the basis of the report submitted by the Police which is contrary to Section 55 of the said Act. Hence, -:5:- taking cognizance against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 9,27, 31 r/w Section 51 of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 is one without authority of law.
Accordingly, I pass the following
ORDER
i) The Criminal Petition is allowed
ii) Order dated 6.7.2019 passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu-Madikeri, Sitting at Virajpet in Sessions Case No.56/2015 taking cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 9,27, 31 r/w Section 51 of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 is hereby quashed and consequently, the petitioners are discharged for the aforesaid offences.
This order will not come in the way of the leaned Sessions Judge to proceed against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 323, 324, 506 r/w 120B of IPC and Section 25(1-B) (a) of the Arms Act, 1959.
Sd/-
JUDGE HR