SRI D. MANJUNATH v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

3

Shiggavi police station for the above offences. On jurisdictional point, the FIR was transferred to Molakalmuru police station and a crime was registered in Cr.No.62/2012.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners placing reliance on the decision of this Court in STATE BY RURAL POLICE vs. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY AND OTHERS in Crl.A.No.2313/2006 dated 20.05.2012 at the outset submitted that in view of the bar contained under Section 55 of the Act, the Dy.S.P. was not competent to lodge a complaint and to set the law in motion. Further, he submits that even though the offence under section 379 of Indian Penal Code has been invoked, the allegations made in the complaint do not make out the ingredients of Section 379 of Indian Penal Code and hence, the registration of the case against the petitioners being without authority of law, the same amounts to abuse of process of court and is liable to be quashed.

4. Refuting the submissions, learned Addl. SPP has placed reliance on a notification issued by the Government of Karnataka bearing No.AFD 104 FWL 73 dated 16^thOctober 1973

4

and would submit that under the said notification, all the Officers above the rank of a Sub-Inspector of Police are empowered to take note of the forest offences under the said Act and file a complaint in the Court of law and therefore there is no illegality in the registration of the case against the petitioners. Further, referring to Section 56 of the Act, learned counsel would submit that by virtue of the said provision, the registration of FIR under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code is maintainable and hence, there is no reason to quash the impugned order.

5. Further, learned Addl. SPP has placed reliance on a subsequent notification issued by Forest, Environment and Ecology Secretariat bearing No.FEE 81 FWL 2009, Bengaluru dated 26.08.2010, whereunder all Forest Officers of and above the rank of Forestor within their Territorial/Wildlife jurisdictions, all Police Officers of and above the rank of Sub-Inspector of Police, all Revenue Officers of and above the rank of Tahsildar, and all officers of the Customs Department of the rank of Assistant Commissioner and above within their jurisdictions are

5

constituted as 'Authorised Officer/Officers' under section 55(b) of the Act.

6. Further referring to Section 56 of the Act, learned Addl. SPP would submit that under the said provision, the accused can be prosecuted under any other law for the time being in force and therefore, there is no illegality in the registration of the case under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code and consequently, he seeks for dismissal of the petition. Considered the submissions and perused the records.

7. Dealing with the scope of Section 55 of the Act, in the decision referred above in Crl.A.No.2313/2006 by referring to the notification issued by the Government of Karnataka as well as the language of Section 55 of the Act, this court has taken a view that 'no Court can take cognizance of the offences under the provision of the Act, except on the basis of the complaint submitted by any one of the officers named in Section 55 of the Act.' The subsequent notification issued by Forest, Environment and Ecology Secretariat also clarifies the position

6

that all the police officers of and above the rank of Sub- Inspector of Police, all Revenue Officers of and above the rank of Tahsildar and all officers of Customs Department of the rank of Assistant Commissioner and above within their jurisdictions are empowered to file a complaint in respect of the offences under the Act. In the instant case, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the Dy.S.P is an 'Authorised Officer' within the meaning of Section 55 of the Act. But the provision of the Section 55 as well as notifications referred above empowers the Court to take cognizance of any offence under the Act only on the basis of the "complaint" lodged by any of the authorized officers enumerated in the said section.

8. In the instant case, no doubt, stage of taking cognizance has not yet reached, but in view of this section, 'Authorised Officer' can set the law in motion only by filing a complaint under Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C. and not an information under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. To this extent, the proceedings initiated against the petitioners for the offences under the provisions of the Act cannot be sustained. Consequently, the FIR

7

registered against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 9, 39, 40, 44, 49B, 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 deserves to be quashed. However, insofar as registration of the FIR for the offence punishable under section 379 of Indian Penal Code is concerned, Section 56 of the Act provides that nothing in this Act shall be deemed to prevent any person from being prosecuted under any other law for the time being in force, for any act or omission which constitutes any offence against this Act or from being liable under such other law to any higher punishment or penalty than that provided by this Act. In the instant case, the specific accusations against the petitioners is that the petitioners/accused had committed theft of forest produce and thereby committed the offence under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code. This allegation prima-facie attract the ingredient of Section 379 Indian Penal Code and since said offence is permissible to be investigated under the provisions of Cr.P.C., the FIR registered against the petitioners for the above offence under section 379 Indian Penal Code requires to be continued.

8

Accordingly, the petition is allowed-in-part. The FIR registered against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 9, 39, 40, 44, 49B, 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 is hereby quashed.

Liberty is reserved to the Dy.S.P, Shiggavi to proceed against the petitioners for the offence under the Act by lodging a complaint in accordance with Section 55 of the Act. The FIR registered against the petitioners for the offence under section 379 Indian Penal Code shall be proceeded with in accordance with law.

In view of disposal of the main matter, I.A.No.1/2016 for vacating stay does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, it is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

*mn/-