IN THE HIGH coma? 0? KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 10"*aAy 0? JUNE, 2009 V
BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTECE A.S: pACHHA9fiRE {T
CRIMENAL REVISION PETITION &o.i¢62 Q§ 2§93'fu'*J
BETWEEN:
H.C.Sabakath Hussain,v'
SKO. Hussain Beary,
Aged about 44 years, .
R/at Coastal Rock apartment;
Jaya Mahal, :'*, < L § j mV* \2 *
Bangalore. _[V 5", ,'.'; __A. "";° PETITIONER/S
{By M/3. C.R3g§¢;;a§gam§fafAss§¢é}, Adv3.}
AND:
The State df,Karnétéka} f
By Range Forest Gfficer,
.*K9PPar¢a . *.W ;
* Rey, by State Public Prosecutor,
'High*Ceu;t Building,
Bapgg15;g+§60*Q0;. N RESPONDENTJS
{By'Sfi._B§ Bélakrishna, HCGP.}
-iwiwk
; =T$is Crl.R.P. is filed ufSection 482 Cr.P.C. by
V - {he Advocate for the petitioner praying to quash the
"a;§§ggned Order dt. 22.4.2806 passed by th@ 9.0.,
A "FTC--I, Chikmagalur, in Crl.R.P. No.5?/O5.
This Crl.R.?. Gaming on for Final Hearing thifi
day, the canrt made the Eoiiawing:
ORDER
The petitioner has challenged the Juegmgfififaed
Orders passed by the lower appe;iete’@*CQurt}ub*
Chikmagalur, allowigg’ the Crli§§P;t Ne;57f2$GS” and
directing to reetore C.C. No.54€(20§3 :5 the r::黧f,
the JMFC directing to di3eese,ef rheVceeexee merits
and in accordance with law,~”.r”
2. ?he facts re}e%an§ fe£mfihee§firpose of the
revision are as eederfi g v7 VA r’«w_
I will»be.referriee~fifie earries as per their
rank before xihe_ TrisiV Court for the purpose of
convenience)
fee *§etitieeer sis a Deputy Conservator of
Akforest eed gee arrayed as accused Ne.4 before the
Trial Ce§rEwfer”€he charge of the offence punishabie
V’VunderWSeetiefi 87 of the Karnatake Forest Act r/w.
“e3rEfi:esL84;~§5é, 165 and ?1~A of the Karnataka Ferest
°%eiée,s5 En application came to be filed by the
x “pet§tiener {accused £0.43 ene aiee accused Nes.§ to
“~.§’ under Section 245£2) rfw. Sectien 19? Cr.P.C.
praying to discharge them with the averment that
94
there are no sufficient grounds to proceed against
them for the above said offences.
It is on 95.03.2002 at about 5.00 _a,h{}n the
forest authorities had an information’Hebouth the h.
unlawful possession of sandaiwoofl”pieoes,ahd_in the
circumstances, theyt along fiithoi the’ –a::es§;§g,
witnesses and other officiaiepprooeededVin7the’fieeph
bearing reg. No.KA Glfifi 3369 ehd when they qeme near
Thirthahalli, near Aeéteb,§htSih§ home, they saw a
vehicle and they«%k$?P$dififldhmédhhihéiéearch, and on
observation of ehefiicioghioohfihot of the inmates of
the sale §éfi:¢ig,ih§¢§§§§ Noeii to 3 who were found
on inteftogatioe [v5i$Q< hot offer satisfactozy
explanation "and _théy itoid about the sandalwood
xtieceeiahagingt beeh "Stored """ near the fiursing Home.
Thev eaid¢ sfihdalwood pieces were seized and on
hi~Vo furtheii ihtorfiogation, accused Nos.1 to 3 gave a
yglunterfitgetatemeht that on the instructions of
«ohéeofifiee he.é, they had come to purchase the
hx_ Sanfleifioed gieoes and as they found it not worthy,
vtefected the offer" to purchase and waere retaining
nhaok. They also stated that it wag accused Nos.5 to
? who had collected sandaiwooé pieces at that place.
So far 33 accusad $03.5 ts '? are ceacerned, they
were l@ft~out during the investigation. A. charge
sheet was laidT only' against accused §os.1 tfi 4a
During the proceedings before the Magfi$tra§%;mfifi*u
appiicaticn unfier Section Eéfigg) CftfigC;. ;tb
discharge them came to be filedifi
On a§preciation of thé,$at@rial cg reéfif&; the'
Trial Caurt allowed the application afid-§isbharged
accused Nos.1 to 4. "fifiqrievgdébgjfihe said Order,
the State preferxed revisiofi to fihg 3éssions Court
in Crl.R.P. Nd@S%/2§G§.€,éftép h$§iing the learned
counsei for Eh§_péfitié3; the fast ?xack Court set
aside thé.'Gr8e: §f ";fie¢*ieazned Magistrate and
dixected to firoceed wififi the matter against all the
a/ac¢u$§§zafifi di3pdée cf the matter. Aggrieved by the
§aid =Q:dérgV[ accused No.4 i.e., the Qeputy
V Ccnservator-§f:Ferest has preferred the revision.
V*. 3. ",f'have hearé the ieaxned Ceufisel far the
"§éti:ioher aad alss the learnefi Government Pleader.
' 4. The point that arises for my eonsideration
Whether the Qrder of the Fast
Erack Court, aiiowing the rgvision and
K
directing to proceed against the
petitioner herein i.e., accused No.é,egi;
before the Triai Court is iiiegai and .@'f,u
perverse?
5. It is the contentien ef the leatfied eeuneel
for the petitioner that there ieKne materiel at all *
against the petitiener teiitclfi Vthetifteere are
sufficient grounds te *proeeeeiea§ein$t fiimi for the
offence alleged. In he submits
that the Ordep*efi the Apfiellate Cofiif is illegal and
perverse. ‘ 1 iii’ it ‘ V
Per: ¢ofitfa,_ the “learned Gevernment Pieader
suppoxted”the_impe§fie§*efder of the lower Agpeiiate
Court._i
A’v6f _ u$heV scrutiny of the doeuments and the
ché:gé_.shéet_5iéid by the State reveai only’ two
Vcircum3taeéee’as against the petitioner. The name
~-T at the petitioner eccerding to the prosecutien was
iievealefie only’ flexing’ the interrogation of accused
i”NQe,§ to 3, who stated in their voluntary statements
i”»that it is accused No.§, who gave instructions te
them to g0 and perchaee the sandaiweed. The ether
Circumetances is that an the date of tee incident,
1
accused No.4 i.e., the petitionex herein was to go
to Davangere, but he did not do 30. Insteadfihe
went to Kappa, whexein the incident teak pieeeg”i5eg
far as the 1″ accused is cencerned, it is releventj
to note that accused Nos.§ to 3″in-theirifioleeterfv
statement have stated before tfie fieiicé that tee?”
went to tfie spot on instrfietipn A5f_ aeeeeee””NoC4.
This itself is not a gixcumetencei wfiich_Qeeld be
censidered as a faetiiofeegie&eyeiy under the
provisions of Seetien 2?”ef tee ieéiefiifieidence Act.
The infQrmatipfi_ gifien. by _a ,petSofii$and consequent
recovery “of *afiy fieteiiel weald be the evidence
against tBat_pe:sefi wee gege the infermatien. Se,
at the most;€the’tecC§er§ of the sandalwoed at the
vinetaece _5§V accused. Nos.§ to 3 would be a
eizcemstance against the said accused under Section
2? of the Efidiefi Evidence Act and it can never be a
circumétanee against accused No.4. In that View of
iittheimattef; the mere fact that accused N0.3 stated
eefefe’~the Felice in his etatement that en the
uinetfiuetion of eccueefi $0.4, they gone to the place,
“can not be ceneideredt as a Circumstance against
accused §o.4 i.e., the petitioner herein. éfifi:
?. Et is necessary to note that the petitioner
herein is the Deputy Conservator of Fo:aatt ané
having his office at Bangaiore and hisimaathotitfto
extends to whole of the state. tin the”Citoafiatanca;”
if he had a pmogramme to go to ififiahgatéoaafiifot
some reason if he had changao his proqrafiaa ano§tadE;
gone to Koppa, in my opiaiofi’ thia’.fiaéh fiof doubt
itself is not sufficiofit §t§fififi:g§ah0lW,£§ét there
are material circumstafioaat:agagfiafiifihim for the
accusation ma§efQLApatt€ttomataaae two Circumstances
statad by tho gtosooatigfik tfiéfa is no material at
all ag3inStjW!tHB< toetitioaei and these two
circumstancesVvaiéflfiiaauttioient in my opinion to
proceed against toe yétitioner. in that View of the
_matter§ the Gfdet of the learned Presiding Officar
trot tho Saat Track Court is iilegai and deserves to
bé" Sat "a£ide;*" Hence, I answer the point in
ViVaffirmati#é~ahd proceed to pass the foliowing:
ORDER
E"=;V_fi The petition is allowed. The Qrder of the
Vi"~_§re5idiag Gfficar, Fast ?rack Court, Chikmagaiur, in
Crl.R.P. No.5?/2005, directing to proceed against
the petitioner/accused N0.§ in the case is set
94-