Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1440 (KAR)

Bhagavan Kantharaj v. State of Karnataka

2013-12-26

K.N.PHANEENDRA

body2013
Judgment : 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP. Perused the records. 2. The allegations made against the petitioner are that, when the Forest Officials on 14.11.2013 searched the property belonged to the petitioner, they found that the petitioner was in possession of 25 billets of Nandi trees in Sy.No. 123/1 situated at Badagtabylu Village, N.R. Pura Taluk. On the same day they also found 26 billets of Nandi trees and the Forest Officials have seized the same on the same day. It is further alleged that the land bearing Sy.No.124 of Badagebylu Village and Sy.No.33 of Belluru Village and other survey numbers were in possession of the petitioner and petitioner found in possession of 123 billets of the Nandi wood and other wood and he had illegal possession of the same without any permission or licence to cut the said trees. It is also alleged that on 16.11.2013 they have seized all the logs consisting of 21 billets of Nandi, Rosewood, Mango and other trees and drew up the mahazar dated 22.11.2013. It is alleged by the Forest Officials that the petitioner has encroached the forest land and also cut and removed the trees in the reserved forest area which is impermissible. On the above said allegations, they have registered a case under Sections 8 and 22 of Karnataka Trees Preservation Act, 1976. 3. The petitioner moved Sessions Court for grant of anticipatory bail and the same came to be rejected. The learned Counsel for the petitioner previously contended that Section 8 and 104-A are not attracted. Section 22 is a punishive section punishable with three months imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/-, however the said offence is non-bailable in nature, but it is not so serious in nature. Without properly appreciating facts and considering the punishment prescribed under the statute, the Sessions Court unnecessarily relying upon several Rulings rejected the bail petition. 4. I have also perused the orders passed by the Sessions Court. Without properly appreciating facts and considering the punishment prescribed under the statute, the Sessions Court unnecessarily relying upon several Rulings rejected the bail petition. 4. I have also perused the orders passed by the Sessions Court. The Sessions Court relied upon certain Rulings for the principles that the Court has to consider the ingredients of the offence alleged to have been committed, the nature of accusation, nature of evidence in support thereof, severity of punishment for which conviction will entail, the character of accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with and the larger interest of the public/state. 5. Narrating the above said rulings, the Sessions Court without discussing the merits of the case rejected the bail petition. The nature of allegations and the facts of the case disclose that the accused/petitioner was having possession of these trees, some of them are in Survey Numbers, some of them are alleged to be in the reserved forest area. But the contention taken by the petitioner before the Sessions Court states that those trees were actually situated in his land in Sy.No.123/1, 124 and 119 of Badagabylu Village. The Sessions Judge has concluded that the petitioner has not produced any material to show that he own these lands. But the FIR itself discloses that the petitioner found in possession of 25 billets of Nandi Trees in Sy.No.123 and Sy.No.124 and Sy.No.33 of Badagabylu Village and Belluru Village. This creates a serious doubt as to whether those trees were in existence in the land of the petitioner earlier to those trees being cut and removed. Even without a licence or permission if the trees are cut and removed and are in possession of the petitioner, it cannot be said that it attracts Section 104-A of the Karnataka Forest Act. For this principle, the learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon a Ruling reported in Criminal Law Journal 2003 page 2087 between C. Lakshminarayana Vs. Even without a licence or permission if the trees are cut and removed and are in possession of the petitioner, it cannot be said that it attracts Section 104-A of the Karnataka Forest Act. For this principle, the learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon a Ruling reported in Criminal Law Journal 2003 page 2087 between C. Lakshminarayana Vs. State of Karnataka wherein this Court has held that : "On going through the said provisions, I find that, under S. 104(A), possession of rose wood without valid license or permit is not prohibited and such possession does not ensue any penal consequences and under S.104(A), purchase or transport of any black-wood or bite tree (Dalbergia Latifolia) or timber thereof is prohibited. The provisions do not prohibit the possession per se. The provisions of the Act and Rules, also do not contemplate grant of any license or permit for possession of the rose wood. Rule 127(A), is a corollary provision to S.104(A). Section 104(A) prohibits cutting, felling, selling or transporting of any black-wood or bite tree or timber thereof standing on any land except in accordance with the provisions of this Rule". 6. In view of the above said observations by this Court, mere possession per se cannot be said to be an offence committed by any person. Section 104(A) prohibits cutting, felling, selling or transporting of any black-wood or bite tree or timber thereof standing on any land except in accordance with the provisions of this Rule. So, therefore, mere possession is not sufficient to attract Section 104(A). 7. The learned Counsel also produced before this Court a document showing that the petitioner is working in Ignis Technology Solutions Pvt. Ltd., at Bangalore. He has also produced his appointment letter before this Court which is marked at Document No.4. 8. Looking to the punishment prescribed under Section 22, which only prescribe maximum of three months imprisonment and Rs.1,000/- fine and in the absence of any material to show that the petitioner is an habitual offender to show his conduct it may not be proper on the part of this Court to reject the bail petition. 9. Hence, the following Order : The bail petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. 9. Hence, the following Order : The bail petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. Consequently, the petitioner shall be released on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with FIR No. 76/2013/FOC NO.24/2013-14 for the offences punishable under Sections 8 and 22 of the Karnataka Tree Preservation Act, 1976 r/w Section 104(A) and 13 of Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 on following conditions: a) The petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with one solvent surety for like sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer in the event of his arrest; b) The petitioner shall not indulge in tampering the prosecution witnesses; c) The petitioner shall make himself available to the investigating Officer as and when necessary or required for the purpose of investigation, interrogation, etc.; d) He shall not leave the country without prior permission of this Court till the case registered against him is disposed of.