- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:10285 CRL.P No. 5845 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5845 OF 2024 BETWEEN: MR. ISAK S/O. LATE HAMMABBA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/O KADUMANE HOUSE, UPPINANGADY POST AND VILLAGE, PUTTUR TALUQ, D.K-574 224. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ABDUL ANSAR P., ADVOCATE) AND: STATE BY MANGALORE RURAL POLICE STATION REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. M.R. PATIL, HCGP) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S. 482 CR.P.C, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 86, 87 OF KF ACT IN C.C.NO.225/91 REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT MANGALURU RURAL POLICE STATION PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MANGALURU. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:10285 CRL.P No. 5845 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner, who is being prosecuted for offences punishable under Sections 86 and 87 of the Karnataka Forest Act, has approached this Court seeking relief. 2. The prosecution alleges that the petitioner was found in possession of 16 kg of sandalwood billets without a permit. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, under Section 62A of the Karnataka Forest Act, the investigation of an offence punishable under Sections 86 and 87 can be conducted only by an officer not below the rank of Range Forest Officer. Therefore, the investigation conducted by the Police Inspector, culminating in the filing of the charge sheet, is vitiated, as the Police Inspector lacks the authority to investigate an offence under the Act. 4. In response, the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State submitted that the petitioner was found in possession of 16 kg of sandalwood billets without a permit. He argued that the veracity of the allegation should be considered at trial and cannot be examined in this petition. Accordingly, he sought the dismissal of the petition. 5. The arguments of the learned counsel for both parties have been duly considered. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:10285 CRL.P No. 5845 of 2024 6. Section 62A of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963, states that any Forest Officer not below the rank of a Range Forest Officer may, with regard to offences under this Act, exercise the powers conferred on an officer in charge of a police station under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Therefore, only a Range Forest Officer or an officer of higher rank is authorized to conduct an investigation into offences under the Karnataka Forest Act. 7. In the present case, the investigation was conducted by a Police Inspector, who is not authorized under Section 62A of the Karnataka Forest Act, and the charge sheet was submitted by him. Consequently, the cognizance taken of the offence based on the final report submitted by the police is without authority. Under such circumstances, the continuation of criminal proceedings would constitute an abuse of the process of law. 8. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings in CC No. 225/1991, pending before the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mangalore, are hereby quashed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE BKM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 111