MOHAN KUMAR H.G Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by the petitioner, who was accused No.3 before the trial Court challenging the impugned order dtd. 11/9/2023 passed in CC.No.787/2022 by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Mudigere on an application filed by the petitioner herein under Sec. 239 of Cr.PC.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that on a complaint registered by the Range Forest Officer, the respondentState registered a case in FOC No.8/2021-2022 and FIR No.56431/2021-2022 against the petitioner herein and two others for the offences punishable under Ss. 62, 80 and 104-A of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 (for short, 'the Act') read with Rules 127-A, 144 and 165 of the Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969 (for short, 'the Rules'). The petitioner herein was arraigned as accused No.3. Therefore, he preferred an application under Sec. 239 of Cr.PC. before the trial Court to discharge him from the alleged offences charged against him, which came to be rejected by the trial Court vide impugned order dtd. 11/9/2023.

(3.) It is the contention of learned counsel for petitioner-accused No.3 that initially in the complaint registered, there was no mentioning of the name of the petitioner-accused No.3. However, there was only two accused i.e. accused Nos.1 and 2, who were implicated and thereafter, on the basis of a statement recorded by the Range Forest Officer, accused No.3, the petitioner herein was roped into this case, wherein accused No.1 had stated that the contraband rosewood was at Sy.No.108 of Hanbal Village and that accused No.3, the petitioner herein was the owner of the land and he has paid money to accused No.3 to cut and take the said rosewood from the said survey number. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that though he admits that the petitioner is the owner of Sy.No.108 of Hanbal Village, but he is growing paddy crop in the said village. Therefore, the question of growing rosewood in the said land would not arise.