ORDER
1. The short and common point that arises for determination in these two criminal petitions filed under S. 438, Cr.P.C. is whether a person apprehending arrest by a Range Forest Officer authorised to arrest him in connection with certain forest offences under the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 (for short ‘the Act’) can be granted the relief of anticipatory bail under S. 438, Cr.P.C.
2. Petitioner in Cr.P. No. 1424/90 had approached the Sessions Judge, D. K. District, Mangalore (for short ‘the Sessions Judge’) with an application under S. 438, Cr.P.C. in Cr. Misc. Case No. 96/90 praying for a direction to the Range Forest Officer, Udupi (for short ‘the Forest Officer’) to release him on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No. 56/90-91 registered in the office of the said Forest Officer. It was stated in the application filed by him that on credible information that a wild jack tree had been cut and removed from he forest area in Pernankila village, the Mobile Forest Squad, Moodabidri made a search for the cut portions of the said wild jack tree near about the house of the petitioner and in the course of the search they found four cut sizes of that tree in the ‘Kere’ and six cut sizes inside a bush just in front of the house of the petitioner. The Forest Squad seized the said cut pieces under a mahazar and on returning to their office, registered a case against the petitioner in Crime No. 56/90-91 and submitted FIR to the jurisdictional Court. Therefore, the petitioner apprehending that he is likely to be arrested in connection with Crime No. 56/9O-91 sought anticipatory bail. But, the FIR in Crime No. 56/90-91 said to have been sent by the Forest Officer to the jurisdictional Court was not produced before the learned Sessions Judge along with the application for anticipatory bail.
3. Petitioner in Cr.P. No. 1490/91 had also sought the relief of anticipatory bail under S. 438, Cr.P.C. from the learned Sessions Judge, in Cr. Misc. Case No. 121/90 for a direction to the Assistant Conservator of Forests, Moodabidri Sub-Division (for short the ‘ACF’) release him on bail in the event of his arrest in O.R. No. 88/90-91 of the said ACF. The material allegations made in his application were that the ACF found an autorikshaw bearing No. MYD 7654 proceeding on Niddody-Muchoor road in Karkala Taluk on 2-9-1990. The driver and the two others seated in that autorikshaw on seeing the ACF abandoned the autorikshaw and ran away. On examining that autorikshaw, ACF found in it 56 sandalwood billets and chips weighing 36 Kgs. valued at Rs. 3,600/ -. Therefore, the ACF seized the autorikshaw and the sandalwood billets and chips. One of the three persons including the driver found in that autorikshaw was stated to be the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner apprehending that he is likely to be arrested in connection with O.R. No. 88/90-91 sought anticipatory bail. The offences for which O.R. No. 88/90-91 is registered are stated to be offences under Ss. 86 and 87 of the Act.
4. The learned Sessions Judge has declined the relief of anticipatory bail sought by the petitioners in both the cases by separate but similar orders dated 23-10-1990 on the main ground that the Forest Officer in the first case and the ACF in the second case cannot be regarded as a Police Officer within the meaning of sub-see. (2) of S. 438, Cr.P.C. and the office of the Forest Officer in one case and of the ACF in the other case cannot be regarded as a Police Station under the Cr.P.C. and, therefore, the relief of anticipatory bail sought by the petitioners cannot be granted although the offences under Ss. 86 and 87 of the Act in respect of which O.R. No. 88/90-91 is registered against the petitioner in Cr.P. No. 1490/90 are cognizable and non-bailable offences. He observed that the offences for which Crime No. 56/90-91 was registered in respect of the petitioner in the other case cannot be made out as copy of the FIR was not produced. However, it is now mentioned in the petition that Crime No. 56/90-91 is registered for an offence punishable under S. 379, I.P.C. But, the prayer made by the petitioner in Cr.P. No. 1424/90 is to direct the Forest Officer to release him on bail in the event of his arrest in Crime No. 56/90-91. Prayer made by the petitioner in Cr.P. No. 1490/90 is also to direct the ACF to release him on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest in case No. O.R. 88/90-91 of Kinnigoli section of Moodabidri range, Karkala Taluk.
5. Sri. R. B. Deshpande and Sri T. J. Chouta, learned counsel for the petitioner in these two cases addressed common arguments. According to them, a combined reading of the provisions of Ss. 62, 74, 75, 76, 79, 96 and 99(1)(c) of the Act read with R. 69 of the Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969 (for short ‘the Rules’) would bear out that the Forest Officer of the Range Forest Office in one case and the Assistant Conservator of Forests in the other case, have all the powers of a Police Officer under the Code of Criminal Procedure to investigate the offences under the Act and also arrest persons suspected of having committed offences under the Act and to detain them in custody till they are produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate and, therefore, the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge is not in consonance with the object and the intention with which S. 438, Cr.P.C. is enacted. They also placed reliance on a decision of the Delhi High Court in Suresh Vasudeva v. State, 1978 Cr LJ 677 and of this Court in Fazaul Rahiman v. State of Karnataka, 1984 Cri LJ 1625. On the other hand, Sri. M. Siddagangaiah, learned High Court Government Pleader, argued in support of the impugned orders by contending that the petitioners have not satisfied the requirements of S. 438, Cr.P.C.
6. After giving my anxious considerations to the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners in both the cases, I am inclined to agree with the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners were not in a position to point out any provision in the Act which equates Forest Officers empowered to arrest persons suspected of having committed forest offences with Police Officers or the Forest Office with the Police Station as defined in sub-secs. (o) and (s) of S. 2, Cr.P.C. As rightly observed by the learned Sessions Judge, in the event of the High Court or the Court of Session deciding to grant the relief of anticipatory bail under S. 438(1), Cr.P.C., direction has to be given to a Police Officer to release the person concerned in the event of his arrest on bail subject to compliance of the conditions mentioned in sub-section (2) of S. 438, Cr.P.C. Therefore, such a direction cannot be given to a Forest Officer unless he can be held to be a Police Officer.
8. Learned Sessions Judge has considered the decision of the Delhi High Court in Suresh Vasudeva’s case 1978 Cr LJ 677 and has rightly distinguished the said decision. The relevant observations made in the said decision are that it is clear from the provisions of sub-section (3) of S. 35 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (46 of 1973) that where any officer of enforcement has arrested any person under sub-section (1) of the Act, he shall for the purpose of releasing such person on bail or otherwise, have the same powers and be subject to the provisions as the officer in charge of a Police Station has, and is subject to, under the Cr.P.C. But, in the instant case, no such provision is made in the Act although Forest Officers are invested with powers under S. 74 of the Act to arrest without a warrant from a Magistrate any person reasonably suspected of having concerned in any forest offence punishable with imprisonment for one month or upwards, if such person refuses to give his name and residence or gives a name or residence which there is reason to believe to be false, or if there is reason to believe that he will abscond. It is provided in sub-section (2) of S. 74 that any person arrested under that section shall be informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest and shall be produced before the nearest Magistrate having jurisdiction in the case within a period of 24 hours of such arrest excluding the time necessary for the journey from the place of arrest to the Court of the Magistrate and no such person shall be detained in custody, beyond the said period without the authority of a Magistrate. It is further provided in S. 75 of the Act that any Forest Officer of a rank not inferior to that of a Forest Ranger, who or whose subordinate has arrested any person under the provisions of S. 74 may release such person on his executing a bond with proper surety to appear, if and when so required, before the Magistrate having jurisdiction in the case, or before the officer-in-charge of the nearest Police Station. Therefore, the above observations made by the Delhi High Court in the case of Suresh Vasudeva 1978 Cr LJ 677 are not of any assistance to the petitioners.
9. The next decision on which strong reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners, is of this Court in Fazaul Rahiman’s case 1984 Cr LJ 1625. It is held in that case that Range Forest Officer being a Forest Officer invested with the powers enumerated in S. 99 of the Act has the power to investigate into the forest offence by virtue of S. 99 of the Act and S. 4(2), Cr.P.C. That apart, it is nowhere stated in the said decision that a Forest Officer entrusted with power to investigate into the forest offence by virtue of S. 99 of the Act and S. 4(2), Cr.P.C. can be equated with the Police Officer or an officer-in-charge of a Police Station. Therefore, the said decision is also of no assistance to the petitioners. Consequently, I hold that the petitioners cannot be granted the relief of anticipatory bail under S. 438, Cr.P.C. In view of my said conclusion, it is quite unnecessary to go into the truth or otherwise of the allegations made against the petitioners in the two F.I.Rs.
10. In the result, both the petitions are dismissed.
11. Petitions dismissed.