PRAKASH SHETTY S/O MAHABALA SHETTY Vs. THE FOREST GUARD ALBADI DIVISION SOMESHWARA WILDLIFE DIVISION HEBRI, KARKALA TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT, THE DEPUTY RANGE FOREST OFFICER SOMESHWARA WILDLIFE DIVISION HEBRI, KARKALA TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT AND THE RA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners, said to be A -6 and A -7 in the case pending on the file of the learned J.M.F.C., Karkala, in O.S. No. 22/1998 -99, seek quashing of the proceedings against them. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the F.I.R. was lodged in the case on 15.11.1998 against seven accused persons and long after that date, almost after 11 years, charge sheet came to be submitted and, even after the submission of the charge sheet on 3.8.2010, till date, there is no progress in the case and on account of the inordinate delay in filing the charge sheet, at the first instance, the trial court is also delaying in taking cognizance of the offence under the Wildlife Protection Act and A -1 and A -2 are no more alive and the present petitioners have been attending the court for all these years and in view of the inordinate delay of 11 years in submitting the charge sheet and the trial court also further delaying in taking cognizance, almost by two years, and no progress having been made in the case, the petitioners, therefore, cannot be subjected to unnecessary harassment and, therefore, the proceedings be quashed on this score alone. Reliance is placed in this regard on a Five Bench decision of the Supreme Court, reported in Abdul Rehman Antulay etc. etc. Vs. R.S. Nayak and another etc. etc., AIR 1992 SC 1701 .

(2.) ANOTHER ground put forward is that, even as per the charge sheet material, the petitioners herein were present at the alleged spot from where the forest officials are said to have recovered 10 k.gs. meat of sambar (kadave) and other items like torch light cells, one torch, one iron sword and plastic bottle and capes. It is, therefore, argued that even the petitioners were not present at the spot and the charge sheet material also reveals that the meat it question was the act of ore Dayananda Poojari, who had shot the animal and the meat was then shared among the other accused persons. Merely because the aforesaid items were found in the land of the first petitioner, the question of any of the Offences alleged under the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 viz., Sections 9, 27, 49 and 51, get attracted to the case.

(3.) ON the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for the respondents -State also argued that the first petitioner was not present at the spot and the alleged act of shooting the animal was by one Dayananda Poojari. However, it is submitted that the first proviso to Section 51 gets attracted to this case as the punishment is upto seven years.