Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 182 (KAR)

S. MURARI v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

2004-03-04

B.S.RAJENDRA PRASAD

body2004
B. S. RAJENDRA PRASAD, J. ( 1 ) ALL these petitions involve common questions of law and facts and common arguments are advanced by both the sides. Hence they have been disposed of by common order. ( 2 ) ALL these petitions are filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code. ( 3 ) CRIMINAL petition No. 2853/2002 is for setting aside the order dated 20-7-2002 passed in FIR No. 11/2001-02 by the Range forest Officer, Kudremukh, wherein the learned Magistrate had permitted the Range forest Officer to investigate the case against the accused for offences under Section 24 of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963, Section 35 (6) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, and Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980. ( 4 ) CRIMINAL Petition No. 2854/2002. 2855/2002 and 2859/2002 are filed for setting aside the order in FIR Nos. 10/2001-02, 12/2001-02, 16/2001-02, respectively, passed by the Range Forest Officer, wherein the learned Magistrate had permitted the range Forest Officer to investigate into the cases against the accused for the said offences. ( 5 ) THE Court has heard the arguments of Sri C. V. Nagesh, learned Counsel on behalf of the accused and Sri Belliappa, learned hcgp on behalf of State of Karnataka. ( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously contended that the material on record clearly shows that the order impugned is illegal and improper and the learned Magistrate was totally unjustified in permitting the Range Forest Officer to investigate into the case. The learned counsel also contends that the said offences are noncognizable offences and the learned Magistrate in pursuance of Section 155 of the Code of Criminal Procedure could have referred the matter for investigation to the Police officer and none-else. The learned counsel also contends that the Range Forest Officer cannot be treated as a Police Officer within the meaning of Section 2 (16) of the Karnataka Police Act. Hence, the learned counsel prays for allowing the petitions. ( 7 ) ON the contrary, the learned HCGP strongly contended that the material on record clearly shows that the orders impugned are legal and proper. Hence, the learned counsel prays for allowing the petitions. ( 7 ) ON the contrary, the learned HCGP strongly contended that the material on record clearly shows that the orders impugned are legal and proper. The learned magistrate, after being satisfied that there had been complaint for commission of said offences, had permitted the Range Forest officer to investigate into the case and the order of the learned Magistrate cannot be found fault at all, particularly in the light of the fact that the Range Forest Officer is also deemed to be a Police Officer for the purpose of exercise of power under Section 155 of Criminal Procedure Code. Hence the learned counsel prays for dismissal of the petitions. ( 8 ) ON perusal of material on record, it is seen that in all the four cases, the Range forest Officer has filed complaints before the learned Magistrate alleging commission of offences punishable under the said provisions of law. Along with the complaint, the range Forest Officer had also sought for permission to investigate into the case. The learned Magistrate on 20-7-2002 had passed an order permitting the Range Forest Officer to investigate into the cases. The accused, feeling aggrieved, have come up before this court with the instant petitions. ( 9 ) FROM the settled principle of law, it is clear that while exercising powers, this Court has to exercise with great care, caution and circumspection. All the said offences are non-cognizable offences. The provisions of section 155 (2) deals with regard to investigation of non-cognizable offences. The statutory provisions in this regard make it clear that the Magistrate on getting information about the commission of non-cognizable offence could refer a complaint to the Police officer for investigation and permit him to investigate into the case. In the cases on hand, the Range Forest Officer had been permitted by the learned Magistrate to investigate into the cases. As per the submission of the learned counsel for petitioner. The learned Magistrate is totally unjustified in law in passing the orders impugned. The learned counsel has taken me through the relevant provisions of law and the same make it clear that in respect of non-cognizable offences, the Magistrate has been empowered to exercise power under Section 155 (2) of Cr. P. C. and refer the matter to the police Officer and investigate into the case. The learned counsel has taken me through the relevant provisions of law and the same make it clear that in respect of non-cognizable offences, the Magistrate has been empowered to exercise power under Section 155 (2) of Cr. P. C. and refer the matter to the police Officer and investigate into the case. ( 10 ) THE provisions of Section 202 of cr. P. C. make it clear that if the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance of the case and if he had decided to have the matter investigated, he could refer the matter to the police Officer or to any such other person. ( 11 ) IN the cases on hand, the Range Forest Officer had himself been the complainant and as such, the Magistrate could not have referred the complaint to the Range forest Officer for investigation of the cases as the complainant and the investigating officer cannot be one and the same, ( 12 ) NEXTLY, it is necessary to mention that the provisions of Section 156 of Cr. P. C. make it clear that in respect of cognizable offence, the Police Officer may. without the order of a Magistrate investigate into the case. Such being the case, Section 156 cannot be resorted to with respect to the cases on hand. The learned HCGP made a submission that the provisions of Section 156 of Cr. P. C. could be read even in respect of investigation into a non-cognizable offence by a Police Officer. It is necessary to mention that the statutory provisions are clear. The intention of the legislature could be gathered from the said statutory provisions. If the intention of the legislature was to the effect that the Police Officer had been empowered to investigate the case in respect of cognizable and non-cognizable offences without the permission of the Magistrate, there was no need for provisions of Section 155 at all in Cr. P. C. The fact that provisions of Sections 155 and 156 appear in statute book, it is clear that the intention of the legislature had been to differentiate the investigation of a case in respect of non-cognizable offence and investigation of a case in respect of cognizable offence. In view of the statutory provisions, it is clear that the learned Magistrate was not at all justified in directing the Range Forest Officer to investigate into the cases. In view of the statutory provisions, it is clear that the learned Magistrate was not at all justified in directing the Range Forest Officer to investigate into the cases. Moreover, the Range forest Officer cannot be deemed to be a Police Officer. In this regard, it is necessary to mention that the provisions of Section 2 (16) of the Karnataka Police Act defines a Police officer as a member of police force appointed or deemed to be appointed under the Act and includes Special or Additional Police officer appointed under Sections 19 and 20 of the Act. The provisions of Sections 19 and 20 of the Act also make it clear that a Range forest Officer cannot be treated as a Police officer. ( 13 ) AT this stage, it is also necessary to mention that statutory provisions of Section 62-A (1) of the Karnataka Forest Act lays down that a Range Forest Officer shall be deemed to be a Police Officer for the purpose of Section 156 of Cr. P. C. In the cases on hand, this Court has been considering the statutory provisions of Section 155 of cr. P. C. Such being the case, the State, in this regard, cannot take shelter under Section 62-A of the Karnataka Forest Act to wriggle out of the situation. ( 14 ) THE discussion supra and the settled law in this regard make it clear that the orders impugned are illegal and improper. ( 15 ) THOUGH many other submissions have been made at the bar, in view of the discussion supra, this Court is of the opinion that there is no need to probe further in the matter and it would suffice, if it is held that the orders impugned are illegal and improper. ( 16 ) THE statutory provisions of Section 482 of Cr. P. C. confers inherent power on this Court to exercise its powers if any one of the three grounds are made out. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that it would amount to abuse of process of law, if the proceedings are to be continued. ( 17 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, the petitions are allowed. Consequently, the orders impugned are hereby set aside and the accused are discharged of the said offences. ( 17 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, the petitions are allowed. Consequently, the orders impugned are hereby set aside and the accused are discharged of the said offences. It is also necessary to observe that the State is at liberty to proceed against the accused in accordance with law, if there had been commission of the offences alleged. Petitions allowed. --- *** --- .