- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:16475 CRL.P No. 13123 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 13123 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. SRI MAHESHA S/O LATE BYRA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT DIDDAHALLI VILLAGE KODAGU DISTRICT - 01. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PAVAN B.K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY RANGE FOREST OFFICER, ANE CHOWKUR WILDLIFE RANGE, ANE CHOWKUR, REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE - 01. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. M.V. ANOOP KUMAR, HCGP FOR R1) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C (U/S 528 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE FIR IN FOC NO.1/2020-2021 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 24(e) OF KARNATAKA FOREST ACT, 1963, SECTIONS 27,35,38(v) AND 51 OF WILDLIFE PROTECTION ACT, 1972, REGISTERED BY DEPUTY RANGE FOREST OFFICER, ANECHOWKUR WILDLIFE RANGE, ANECHOWKUR AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN FOC NO.1/2020-2021, PENDING ON THE FILE OF HONBLE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, PONNAMPET AGAINST THE PETITIONER. Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:16475 CRL.P No. 13123 of 2024 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER The petitioner challenges the registration of the FIR for the offence punishable under Section 24(e) of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 (for short, ‘the Act’). 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader (HCGP) for the State. 3. The primary contention of the petitioner is that the Deputy Range Forest Officer is not competent to investigate the offences alleged against the petitioner, as provided under Section 62A of the Act. It would be useful for this Court to extract paragraph No.5 of the order passed by this Court in Crl.P.No.101990/2022, which reads as under: "5. The FIR was registered on 03.10.2012. The Police, after investigation, submitted the charge sheet on 27.11.2020. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the aforesaid offences on 05.08.2021. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sara Mathew (supra), while examining the issue Whether for the purposes of computing the period of limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C. the relevant date is the date of filing of the complaint or the date of institution of the prosecution or whether relevant date is the date on which a Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence, at paragraphs 17, 18 & 39, has held as follows: “17. It is true that in Bharat Kale [Bharat Damodar Kale v. State of A.P., (2003) 8 SCC 559 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 39] and Japani Sahoo [Japani Sahoo v. Chandra Sekhar Mohanty, (2007) 7 SCC 394 : (2007) 3 SCC (Cri) 388] this - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:16475 CRL.P No. 13123 of 2024 Court has referred to two important legal maxims. We may add that in Vanka Radhamanohari [Vanka Radhamanohari v. Vanka Venkata Reddy, (1993) 3 SCC 4:1993 SCC (Cri) 571] , to which our attention has been drawn by the counsel, it is stated that the general rule of limitation is based on the Latin maxim vigilantibus et non dormientibus, jura subveniunt, which means the vigilant and not the sleepy, are assisted by laws. We are, however, unable to accept the submission that reliance placed on legal maxims was improper. We are mindful of the fact that legal maxims are not mandatory rules but their importance as guiding principles can hardly be underestimated. 18. Herbert Broom in the Preface to the first edition of his classical work Legal Maxims (as seen in Broom's Legal Maxims, 10th Edn., 1939) stated: “In the Legal Science, perhaps more frequently than in any other, reference must be made to the first principles. Indeed, a very limited acquaintance with the earlier reports will show the importance which was attached to the acknowledged maxims of the law, in periods when civilisation and refinement had made comparatively little progress. In the ruder ages, without doubt, the great majority of questions respecting the rights, remedies, and liabilities of private individuals were determined by an immediate reference to such maxims, many of which obtained in the Roman law, and are so manifestly founded in reason, public convenience, and necessity, as to find a place in the code of every civilised nation. In more modern times, the increase of commerce, and of national and social intercourse, has occasioned a corresponding increase in the sources of litigation, and has introduced many subtleties and nice distinctions, both in legal reasoning and in the application of legal principles, which were formerly unknown. This change, however, so far from diminishing the value of simple fundamental rules, has rendered an accurate acquaintance with them the more necessary, in order that they may be either directly applied, or qualified, or limited, according to the exigencies of the particular case, and the novelty of the circumstances which present themselves.” In our opinion, therefore, use of legal maxims as guiding principles in Bharat Kale [Bharat Damodar Kale v. State of A.P., (2003) 8 SCC 559 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 39] and Japani Sahoo [Japani Sahoo v. Chandra Sekhar Mohanty, (2007) 7 SCC 394 : (2007) 3 SCC (Cri) 388] is perfectly justified. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:16475 CRL.P No. 13123 of 2024 39. As we have already noted in reaching this conclusion, light can be drawn from legal maxims. Legal maxims are referred to in Bharat Kale [Bharat Damodar Kale v. State of A.P., (2003) 8 SCC 559 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 39] , Japani Sahoo [Japani Sahoo v. Chandra Sekhar Mohanty, (2007) 7 SCC 394 : (2007) 3 SCC (Cri) 388] and Vanka Radhamanohari [Vanka Radhamanohari v. Vanka Venkata Reddy, (1993) 3 SCC 4 : 1993 SCC (Cri) 571] . The object of the criminal law is to punish perpetrators of crime. This is in tune with the well-known legal maxim nullum tempus aut locus occurrit regi, which means that a crime never dies. At the same time, it is also the policy of law to assist the vigilant and not the sleepy. This is expressed in the Latin maxim vigilantibus et non dormientibus, jura subveniunt. Chapter XXXVI CrPC which provides limitation period for certain types of offences for which lesser sentence is provided draws support from this maxim. But, even certain offences such as Section 384 or 465 IPC, which have lesser punishment may have serious social consequences. The provision is, therefore, made for condonation of delay. Treating date of filing of complaint or date of initiation of proceedings as the relevant date for computing limitation under Section 468 of the Code is supported by the legal maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit which means that the act of court shall prejudice no man. It bears repetition to state that the court's inaction in taking cognizance i.e. court's inaction in applying mind to the suspected offence should not be allowed to cause prejudice to a diligent complainant. Chapter XXXVI thus presents the interplay of these three legal maxims. The provisions of this Chapter, however, are not interpreted solely on the basis of these maxims. They only serve as guiding principles.” 4. Therefore, the registration of the FIR and the subsequent investigation of the aforesaid offences by the Deputy Range Forest Officer lack authority, and in such circumstances, the continuation of the investigation would amount to an abuse of the process of law. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:16475 CRL.P No. 13123 of 2024 5. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i. The criminal petition is allowed. ii. The impugned FIR in FOC No.1/2020-2021 registered by the respondent is hereby quashed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE HDK List No.: 2 Sl No.: 108 CT: BHK