M.N. MANJUNATH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to quash the charge-sheet in C.C.No.645/2012 arising out of case Crime No.FOC 42/2010-11 dtd. 26/5/2012 of Range Forest Officer, Kanakapura Range, Kanakapura for the offence punishable under Sec. 24(a), (c)(ii), (d),(e), 73(d), 32(2)(iii)(a)(v)(vi)(2) of Karnataka Forest Act and Rule 25 of the Karnataka Forest Rules, pending on the file of the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Kanakapura.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case is that the respondent herein initiated the criminal prosecution against the petitioner herein making the allegation that the petitioner is the grantee of quarrying lease granted by the State of Karnataka to an extent of 4 acres in Survey No.67 of Kabbehalli Village, Kanakapura Taluk, Ramanagara District covered under the registered quarrying lease deed No.728 dtd. 20/8/2005 for quarrying multi colour granite. The allegation in the charge-sheet is that this petitioner in excess of the lease area illegally trespassed the land of Forest Department and caused damage to the boundary line and also unauthorisedly felled trees 100 meters inside the forest area, which consists of gomal land and thereby committed the above offence. It is also an allegation that 1.8 tons of firewood was also seized and Tata Hitachi vehicle was seized and thereafter as per the Court order, the vehicle was released. There are eye-witnesses to the incident and investigation is conducted and charge-sheet is filed.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that this petitioner has not encroached the forest area or indulged in such activity as alleged in the charge-sheet. The learned counsel brought to the notice of this Court the order passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.38415-38420/2019 and other connected matters dtd. 24/6/2011, wherein this Court referred the matter to the Rule 11 Committee to pass an order and interim order which has been granted earlier is subsisting and no report is given by the Rule 11 Committee. The learned counsel would submit that no survey is conducted and no report is given with regard to encroachment and hence there cannot be any criminal prosecution against the petitioner.