1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE Dated this the 12th day of August, 2.01 1 BEFORE THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE N KUMAR CrRPN 1747 of 2004 BETh’EEN: State of Karnataka by Range Forest Officer Kudremukh Range Kudremukh Chickrnagalur District Petitioner (By Sri K.M. Shivayogiswamy, HCGP) AND: Mr. Niren Jam Aged about 30 years S/o Sri Vijayakumar JaIn Architect Rathna Apartments Kadri bangalore — 575 002 Respondent (By Sri R Nitin, Advocate for P... H. Harnrmantharayappa, Advocate) This Criminal Revision Petition lIled under Section 397 read w oh 401 (.i P C bx the SPP frr the St ue plcn in that this Honble Court may he pleased to set aside lhe order dated 1-7-2004 passed by the Principal Sessions Jude, ChikmaaIur. itt Cr1, R. P. i\o34 of 2004. This C comin on for hearim this day, the Court made the fo11owin: ORDER This revision petition is filed against the order passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Chikmagalur, who allowed the Criminal Revision Petition and set aside the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate, Mudigere and allowed the applies tiorl filed by the respondent under Section 451 and 457 CrPC and directed that the properties seized and reported to jurisdictional Magistrate by RJhO. Kudremukh Wild Life Range to be released i.n favour of rcapondent on his executing an indemnity bond in a sum of Rs, I lakh with two sureties subject to the condition mentioned therein. 3 2. The petitioner searched and seized the articles that were in the office of the third respondent on 22.04.2004 and the same was handed over to RF.O Kudremukh Wild Life Range to examine the seized articles and to register a case against the respondent The RF.O registered a case In FOC No.3/2004-2005 for the offences under Section 5, 25 and 62 of the Karnataka Forest Act. 1963 and Section 27. 28 and 39 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act. 1972 on 27.04.2004 and reported the seizure to the learned Magistrate JMFC. Mudigere. 3. The respondent filed application under SectIon 451 and 457 Cr.P.C praying for release of the said articles to his custody. The said application came to be rejected. Aggrieved by the same, he preferred Revision Petition to the District Court In Crl.Revn.Petn.54/2004. 4. The learned District Judge allowed the Revision Petition on the ground that on the date of the seizure. no case have been registered for violation of any of the provisions either 4 in the Karnataka Forest Act. 1963 or under the Wild Lift’ (Protection) Act, 1972. An investigating OffIcer gets power of seizure after the case is registered or by obtaining requisite warrant for search from tile jurisdictional Matistrate/competent authority. As no case was registered. no warrant was issued, the entire search and seizure is illegaL Therefore he set aside the order of the learned Magistrate. allowed the application of the respondent filed under Section 451 and 457 subject to the conditions imposed by him, 5. As the law on the oint is well settled, the order assed by the learned District Judge is strictly in accordance with law and do not suffer from any legal infirmity which calls for interference as th.e entire search and seizure was without authority oi law. 6. in fact, today, we have quashed the proceedings initiated aeainst the resnondent herein and therefore the , i’’ a a 5 by learned District Judge would also not arise after quashing of the criminal proceedings initiated against him. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not see any merit in this Revision Petition, Accordiny1y it is dismissed Sdf ksp/