MRS. MIEKYUNG KOAK Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned State Public Prosecutor.

(2.) The petitioner is said to be a Korean national and she is holding a spousal visa given to her, on account of the fact that her husband is pursuing his Ph.D. in Peace at the Martin Luther King University at Shillong, Meghalaya.

(3.) It is the case of the respondents that on 13.04.2015 at about 6.50 a.m., the petitioner was to travel from Kempegowda International Airport, Bangalore by Indigo Flight bearing No.6E-457 to Guahati. When she was subjected to security check, she had been found to possess a horn of a Chital Deer (Axis Axis). The petitioner was apprehended by the security personnel of the Airport and the matter was reported to the Station House Officer, Devanahalli Police Station and an F.I.R. came to be registered by the respondent in Crime NO.53/2015 for offences punishable under Sections 39, 40, 44, 49(B), 49(C) and 51 of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 and the petitioner w as arrested and the property was seized by the police under a mahazar. The petitioner was then produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate, who remanded her to judicial custody. The petitioner had moved for regular bail and thereafter she was granted bail on certain conditions which included that the petitioner shall not leave the country and was required to surrender her passport. It is that which is under challenge in the present proceedings. The petitioner also claims that the entire proceedings are misconceived, as there is no offence committed by her under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and in this regard, she had produced a report dated 29.04.2015 by the National Centre for Biological Sciences, which would reveal that the sample was allegedly an antler matching the DNA of the Chital Deer (Axis Axis) which is an animal classified at Schedule III of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, whereas the offences alleged under Sections 40. 44, 49(B) and 49(C) in the F.I.R. and the charge-sheet do not pertain to a Schedule III animal. Insofar as Sec. 39 of the Act, is concerned, the same is not applicable, as the seized article is not the outcome of any hunting referred to in Sec. 11 and it was neither found in a Sanctuary referred to in Sec. 29 of the Act nor in any National Park referred to Sec. 35 of the Act. The Magistrate, however, was not impressed by the report and has proceeded to pass the above order taking cognizance of the alleged offences. It is that which is under challenge in the present petition.