Crl.P No.4 12052003
IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 23*") DAY OF MARCH 2009
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K. BHAKTHAvA'z'si=;L;a;.'__'__*~ "
CRIMINAL PETITION No.412o/2003..__,'_"_'~-, 0'
BETWEEN I it 0
Sri Kalegowda,
S /0 late Sri Kenchegowda,
Age: 6 years,
R/0 Kolalgundi,
Maralawadi Hobli,
Kanakapura Taluk, -- » _ : V A AA
Bangalore Rural District. Petitioner
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka, A
By its Principal Secretary to
Forest Departgrnent, " ._ A
M S"'B'ui1din-$01' H ****
Banga1ore~.56O 00001. _
,2. the A'u.th!ori0se-:0{'Qfiiee:and
Deputy Conservato1'.of.F*'orest,
Bangalore R'ural,._Division,
_A1=a_nya.,Bhavan, '
Ma1'1¢ehWaFam, "
Banga1o:*e546--Q 003.
~ _ 0' Aegsietant Conservator of
. V F'otre:sts,, Mobile Squad,
}3.ang'a,1ore Rural District,
Cr§.P No.4120:'2003
2
Aranya Bhavan,
Malleshwararn,
Bangalore-S60 03. Respondents
(By Sri A V Ramakrishna, HCGP, for respondent)
F
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of th’e–.C-od’e._._oi.,
Criminal Procedure, praying to quash the order dated 3 ;’3.20:,G=l “passed ‘
by the A O and Dy. Conservator of Forest, ,,Banga1.o’r’e”‘ ‘Divrll; in FCC”.
No.703/82-83 and the proceedings thereunder and the _iudgm_ent~dated 7
18.6.2003 passed by the Prl. S J, Bangalore,’ R1:i’r*a1–r’ District’, B’a:n-ga’i::i’e,
in Crl. Misc. Appeal No.4/2001. I W =
This Petition coming on for hearingthis day,~t_herCoLii1:t made the
following:
No.MYW 7077, ivvhicii by the authorized officer and the
Dy. Conservator of’*F4orevstis”, iRural Division, under Section 71-
A(2) of the _l§{ar11ataka”‘ Forest ‘Act, 1963, is before this Curt under
SecitiionP482_,iSof of Criminal Procedure, praying for quashing the
;:._order aa:,¢ar3,§t3.::oo1 passed in too No.703/82-83 on the file of the
authorized O–fficefr’and Dy. Conservator of Forests, and the proceedings
thewjtzdgrnent dated 18.6.2003 made in Crl. Misc. Appeal
the file of Prl. Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District,
Bian.galo.rei, and issue direction to the respondents to release the lorry
L/
K/15.1′ I’iU.’?l;LUfA.UUJ
of confiscation as early as possible. Thereafter, the petitioner noticed
the order of confiscation of the a’oove–said lorry in newspaper dated
12.8.1992. The petitioner approached the 2W1 respondent/ authorized
Officer and made enquiries. The petitioner obtained the
of the order dated 16.7.1992 and filed Misc. Appeal–‘..’:ir1
challenging the order of confiscation of the-J2114-.respon_d9eri:t.'< hefoiie the ' j 9
Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District;.l3angalore–.
Sessions Judge, after hearing argurneliits, dated
30.11.1999, set aside the ordergof Confisoatilon datecl.._16._Tf.199.'2 and
remanded the case to the 2nd Officer for fresh
enquiry and disposal of_'"th_e same'..:mo9nths, after giving
opportunity Qlrfhéllvlifrevspondent commenced the
enquiry and again of confiscation of the lorry
holding that the lorry\§fas_i'n\ro*Efred':in the commission of forest offence
in tfjiecase 82433. The petitioner again challenged
the conftsCation'–.in Crl. Misc. Appeal No.4/2001. The learned
Ziifi-3"~€?§5vions hearing arguments, by judgment dated
_ clonlirrne-d the order of the authorized Officer regarding
. c'o'nfiscation9." ~._
Crl.P No.4120i'2003
U1
The petitioner filed Writ Petition No.37510/2003 challenging the
order of confiscation of the authorized Officer as Well as the judgment of
the Sessions Court made in Crl. Misc. No.4/2001, but on 7.102003,
the Writ Petition was withdrawn as not rnaintainable
Petition came to be filed under Section 482 of Cr. P C
praying for the reliefs, as mentioned above.
3. The short question that arises’fopconsideratioiii’disk’:
Whether the presentl:Pe_tition
Section 482 of P –C.,1-isJirna’in’tainable ?
4. Learned Counsel” for tgihe subniits that since the
petitioner has filed _a_ Betition:Viin.,._I\’o.§3»7510/2003 and the same was
withdrawn on 7.1lO_._2003l aslnot nialirifainable, the present Petition may
be entertaineriand disposedof on rnerits.
Goveirn_ment Pieader submits that the petitioner filed
an Appeal Aun.derl ii”/’1~[} of the Karnataka Forest Act–l963 before
the S«;ssions”J.u’dge..’ The order of the learned Sessions Judge as per
S:L1ilb4~Si§C¥tiOI~1″..{2) of Section 71-13 of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1953 shall
the same cannot be questioned under Section 482 of
15>,:c’;’*’:»ie cited a decision reported in 2005 see (CRi..) 248 (STATE
lL/
Cr§.P No.é$§20i-‘Z003
OF’ HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. DHANWANT SINGH) on the point that a
Petition under Section 482 of Cr. P C., cannot be entertainedVanid_V_the
alternative remedy is to file ‘t Petition under Article
Constitution of India.
6. The Hon’b1e Apex Court in Re.
that invocation of Section 482 of Cr. P ‘to deai withupthe iord’e1~s”iof the V
Sessions Judge passed in Appeal. is not-~pe’rrriisAsib1e.i’ =’1′.he;..’above–said
decision is applicable on all on hand and the
present Petition is not maintainabiei ‘ w
7. Learned Coia_nsei1’_foi”ithejipeftitioneriisubmits that liberty may be
given to the petitioner to sieieii<i:Hfo1<iiéestoifatiori» Petition filed by
the petitioner in W P No.3'f51i(}/2003}'»'i ii
8. Learned Goveiinnient Pieader has no objection.
9. In view’ “thee-v.:_iai.50′{e,’*. the Petition is rejected as not
maintainabieV,v,with to the petitioner to seek for restoration of W P
_ pp .
Judge
Bjs ”
