JUDGMENT Mohammad Nawaz, J. - This appeal is filed by the accused challenging the judgment and order dated 19.06.2019 passed by the Court of the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Special Court, Bengaluru in LGC (G) No. 549/2018, convicting him for the offence punishable under Section 4(3) of the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short). 2. The Special Court has sentenced the accused to suffer imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. In default of payment of fine amount, to further suffer imprisonment for a period of one month. 3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent. 4. The case of the prosecution is that the accused has illegally encroached upon 32 guntas, 1 acre and 2 acres, totally measuring 3 acres 32 guntas of Tyagadabagi Minor Forest Lands in Sy. Nos. 56, 57 and 58 respectively of Tyagadabagi Village in Tarikere Taluk, Chikkamagaluru District, for the purpose of cultivation and growing jowar crop and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 4(3) of the Act. 5. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the entire case of the prosecution is false and the appellant has not encroached upon any forest lands or government land as alleged by the prosecution. He submits that no notice was issued to the appellant before conducting the mahazar and the alleged mahazar at Ex. P.2 was not drawn in the presence of the appellant. The panch witnesses to the mahazar have not been examined. He submits that even according to the schedule, the land is surrounded by the other lands owned by private persons and therefore, it cannot be said that the accused has encroached upon any forest land. The trial Court erred in drawing an inference that the appellant was in possession and cultivation of the lands in Sy. Nos. 56, 57 and 58 of Tyagadabagi Village, Tarikere Taluk only on the oral evidence of PW. 1. The prosecution has also not produced any photographs showing that the accused was in fact growing jowar crop. He submits that the material on record are not sufficient to hold that the accused is guilty of the offence alleged. Accordingly, he seeks to allow the appeal. 6. 1. The prosecution has also not produced any photographs showing that the accused was in fact growing jowar crop. He submits that the material on record are not sufficient to hold that the accused is guilty of the offence alleged. Accordingly, he seeks to allow the appeal. 6. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader vehemently contends that Ex. P.2-Mahazar itself shows that the accused was present at the time of conducting the mahazar and he refused to sign the mahazar. He contends that when the accused was enquired, he has admitted that, earlier his father was cultivating the said lands and presently he is continuing the cultivation, which shows that he has unauthorizedly occupied the forest lands. He submits that the documents at Exs. P.5 to 7 are the RTC extract of the land in question which clearly shows that the lands in Sy. Nos. 56, 57 and 58 of Tyagadabagi Village in Tarikere Taluk are forest lands. Hence, he submits that in view of the evidence of PW. 1 and documents adduced before the Court below, the prosecution has established the case against the accused. Accordingly, he seeks to dismiss the appeal. 7. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has got examined the Range Forest Officer as PW. 1 and got marked Exs. P.1 to 8. 8. PW. 1 has stated that the accused had encroached a total extent of 3 acres 32 guntas of forest lands in Sy. Nos. 56, 57 and 58 of Tyagadabagi Village and he was illegally cultivating jowar crop in the said lands. On 10.01.2018, the Sub Range Forest Officer of Gurupura Division prepared the sketch in respect of the encroached lands and thereafter prepared the mahazar and sent the report. After verifying the same, he has filed the complaint as per Ex. P.1. The documents furnished along with the complaint are marked as Exs. P.2 to P.8. In the cross-examination, he has admitted that at the time of mahazar, no notice was issued to the accused, however, he has stated that the accused refused to sign the mahazar. 9. It is the specific contention of the accused that neither the accused nor his family members were in possession and enjoyment of the alleged lands in Sy. Nos. 56, 57 and 58 of Tyagadabagi Minor Forest lands situated in Tarikere Taluk, Chikkamagaluru District. 10. 9. It is the specific contention of the accused that neither the accused nor his family members were in possession and enjoyment of the alleged lands in Sy. Nos. 56, 57 and 58 of Tyagadabagi Minor Forest lands situated in Tarikere Taluk, Chikkamagaluru District. 10. The prosecution has to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt by showing that the accused has in fact encroached upon the above lands and he was cultivating the same. According to PW. 1, it is the Deputy Range Forester who after inspection prepared the sketch and mahazar and sent a report to him and thereafter, he lodged the complaint. However, the said Deputy Range Forester has not been examined by the prosecution. The panch witnesses in whose presence the mahazar was conducted are also not examined to prove that either the said mahazar was conducted or the accused was present at the time of mahazar. PW. 1 has admitted in the cross-examination that no notice was issued to the accused before conducting the mahazar. The documents at Exs. P.5 to 7 go to show that Sy. No. 56 land measures an extent of 294.2 acres, Sy. No. 57 land measures an extent of 158.24 acres and Sy. No. 58 land measures an extent of 332.30 acres. It is not forthcoming as to how in 3 different survey numbers, the accused was cultivating jowar crop. 11. This Court in the case of Smt. Laltha Sastry v. State of Karnataka Represented by Its Secretary, Department of Parliamentary Affairs and Legislation and Others reported in ILR 2008 Kar 4520 has held that showcause notice is to be given calling upon those alleged encroacher to file their objections. The procedure is required to be followed before initiation of criminal proceedings. 12. The procedure is required to be followed before initiation of criminal proceedings. 12. The Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 107303/2019 and connected matters disposed of on 25.06.2019 in the case of Pundlika S/o. Homanna Mirasihi v. The Tahasildar, Haliyal has reiterated the above position of law laid down in the case of Smt. Lalitha Sastri (supra) observing that where the appropriate government is of the view that if the government land has been encroached, it would be incumbent upon the State to issue notice to the alleged encroachers calling upon them to file objections to the notice and if no objections are received, authorities are required to visit the spot, conduct a mahazar in the presence of villagers, obtain their signatures and thereafter initiate criminal proceedings, if they are satisfied that there is an encroachment. 13. Admittedly, in the present case, no notice was issued to the accused. Hence, the above procedure laid down by this Court has not been followed. The material on record are not sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and therefore, the impugned judgment and order passed by the Special Court is not sustainable. 14. It is relevant to mention here that the appellant has specifically stated he has not encroached upon the lands in question and he has not been cultivating the said lands. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the accused is neither in possession of the lands in question nor he is cultivating the said lands. 15. It is made clear that if the accused-appellant is found to have encroached upon the government/forest land or found to be cultivating the government/forest land by encroaching the said lands, a fresh cause of action would arise and in that case, the authorities are not prevented from taking action against him in accordance with law. 16. For the foregoing reasons, I pass the following order; Appeal is allowed. The judgment and order dated 19.06.2019 passed by the Court of the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Special Court, Bengaluru in LGC (G) No. 549/2018 is hereby set aside. The accused is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 4(3) of the Karnataka Land Grabbing Prohibition Act, 2011. The bail bond executed by the accused is discharged. The fine amount if any deposited, shall be returned to the accused/appellant.