IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 06Th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.V.PINTO CRL.P.NO.10464/201 1 Between: S.S.T.A. LOGISTiCS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANiES ACT, 1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT BELGAUM, AND CORPORATE OFFICE AT NO. 903, 904, 9TH FLOOR, PREST1GE MERIDIAN, II M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, SRI ARUN KUMAR PATRICK, PETITIONER (BY SRT TH1RU & THIRU AND SRI B .C.THTRUVENGADAM, ADVOCATES) And: 1. CR1 MINAL 1NV ESTIGATIO N DEPARTMENT CARLTON HOUSE. PALACE ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001 REP: BY ITS SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (H&B SQUAD) 2. THE RANGE FOREST OFFICER BELEKERI. ANKOLA TALC K KARWAR, UflARA KANNADA DISTRICT 3. THE SSIS’F ANT CONSER\ ATOR OF FORESTS ANKOLA SUB DI\ ISION. ANKOLA. UflARA KANNADA RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MAHESH WODEYAR. AG&J THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U!S 482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE FIR NO.189,2010 DATED 08.06.2010 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE .JMFC COURT. ANKOLA ANNEXURE-J) ALONG WITH THE ADI)ITIC)NAL FIR FILED BY TIlE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 30.08.20W (VIDE ANNEXURE M) SC) FAR \S THIS PETITIONER IS CONCERNED AS IT ARISES FROM FOREST COMPL\1N’I NO.17/2009-10 DATED 15.03.2010 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE JMFC COURT. ANKOLA WHICH IN TURN IS BASED ON THE ILLEGAL NOTIFICATION NO.FEE 104 FDP 2010 DATED 01.07.2010. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS THIS DAY. THE COURT MkDE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER This petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings in FIR No.189/2010 of Ankola Police Station. now pending before the JMFC. Ankola. which arises from forest complaint No.17/2009-10 dated 15.03.20 10. 2. It is thc ease of the petitioner that the Government issued a notification No.FEE 104 FDP 2010 dated 01.07.2010 under which the Government of Karnataka notified the areas under the territorial jurisdiction of the Range Forest Offic er of * Karnataka Forest Departmc in inc ludmu the vilcl life to be the specified areas under Section 62 A of Karnataka Forest Act, for the purpose of offence under the said Act and to exercise powers conferred on an Officer in charge of a police station by the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the said notification is dated 01.07.2010 but it has been brought into effect from 04.10.2000. the date on which the said Section was amended. 3. Sri Thiruvengadam. learned Counsel for the petitioner is heard at length and also Sri Mahesh Wodear, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents — Forest Department. 4. It is submitted by the learned Additional Government Advocate that the issue has been settled h the judgment of this Court passed in Crl.P.Nos.7645/2010. 7646/2010 and 7673/2010. He brought my attention to page No.40 of said judgment where the notification now challenged has been I culled out and also he has submitted that the 13ra3 er and issues raised in this petition are same as the one raised in the above mentioned criminal petitions Pagc No.40 of the said judgment indicates the issues raised in the said petition namely issues Nos. I to 4 and page No.h8 of the said judgment states as follows: Point no4I): is answered in the affirmative. By virtue of Section 62-A of the Forest Act. the forest officer above the rank of a RANGE FOREST OFFICER named in Section t,2 A of the Act is equated to a police officer for the purpose of inestigation of offences punishable under the provisions of the Forest Act. Point no.(2): Consequent. it has to be held that the forest officer referred to under Section 62 A of the Forest Act is competent to apply to the magistrate under Section 155(2). Cr.P.C. for grain of permission to investigate non-cognizable offences under the provisions of the Forest kct. He need not apply to the jurisdictional police officer through a complaint to seek such permission from the magistrate. Point no.(3): In the instant case. on facts it has to be held that the forest officer investigating -5- the case in FCR.17/09-1O and FIR.189/1O had obtained prior permission for effecting seizure of the contraband andiron ore which is the subject matter of investigation. Point no.(4): Consequently, it is held that the seizure effected by the investigating officer for was after taking prior permission under Section 155(2), Cr.P.C., and hence not vitiated.” 5. It is seen that Section 62-A of Karnataka Forest Act as it stood before present amendment reads as follows: Section 62 A — Powers of Forest Officer in the matter of investigation -w (1) Any forest officer not below the rank of a RANGE FOREST OFFICER and within such specified area as the State Government may, by notification specify, may as regards offences under this Act exercise powers conferred on an officer in-charge of a police station by the provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 1g73: A -6- Provided that any such power shall be subject to such restrictions and modifications, if any, as the State Government may specify. (2) For the purpose of Section 156 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the area in regard to which the forest officer is empowered under sub-section (1), shall be deemed to be a police station and such officer shall be deemed to be the officer in-charge of such station. From the reading of the said Section. it is seen that the powers of an Officer in-charge of the police station has been entrusted to the forest officer, by the said provision even before the issuance of the notification now challenged in this case. On a careful reading of the notification dated 01.07.2010, it is clear that the powers exercised by the range forest officers including the wild life are the same as the powers of an Officer in-charge of the police station as provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure. I 6. It is seen that though the petitionc! contends that. an additional list of companies “ho have violated the provisions have been added by the investigating agenc3, it is seen that the matter is under in estigation and therefore, the la does permit the investigating officer to bring an panics against whom there appears to be evidence regarding the commission of the offence. Therefore, at this stage the petitioner cannot raise any complaint regarding the addition of companies as per the information submitted 13 the Inestigating Officer dated 31.08.2010 before the Court seeking to add the number of companies against whom the in’ estigation has revealed disclosure of materials for commission of the offence. It is not proper to interfere with the investigation, conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police. CID. Bangalore. Under the circumstances, the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the notification gh es a retrospective effect is not sustainable, since the said po er already existed even prior to 01.07.2010 in Karnataka Forest Act. Further, except the name of the petitioner ho have challenged the said notification. the questions has been answered b this Court and this Court has held that the proceedings cannot be -8- quashed on the basis of the materials thus urged by the petitioner in the said petition. Therefore, I do not find any good ground to quash the proceedings in this case and the petitioner has got ample opportunity to challenge the findings at the appropriate stage. Hence, this petition is dismissed. sd/a JUDGE flu