- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4862 CRL.P No. 102285 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102285 OF 2023 BETWEEN: MADHUKAR DESHPANDE S/O. GOPALRAO DESHPANDE, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCC: BOND WRITER, R/O: GADDI ONI, KITTUR – 591115, TQ: KITTUR, DIST: BELAGAVI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI ANOOP G. DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE) AND: CID, FOREST MOBILE SQUAD, BELAGAVI THOUGH ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD – 580011. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI RAMESH B. CHIGARI, AGA) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 482 OF CR.P.C., 1973, SEEKING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN WLOR NO. 04/2022 NOW RENUMBERED AS C.C.NO. 1742/2023 PENDING ON THE FILES OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, KITTUR FOR OFFENCES U/SEC. 2(16) (c), 39, 50 AND 51 OF THE WILD LIFE (PROTECTION) ACT, 1972 AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4862 CRL.P No. 102285 of 2023 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR ORAL ORDER This petition is filed by sole accused/petitioner under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1742/2023 pending on the file of Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Kittur, registered for offences punishable under Sections 2(16)(c), 39, 50 and 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. 2. The case of the prosecution is that when the complainant was engaged in the awareness program at Hirebagewadi Toll of Belagavi District on 12.07.2022 around 1.00 p.m., they got information from their informers that, the accused is in possession of skin of wild animal. The complainant has secured two panchas and conducted raid and found that accused is in possession of a skin of a wild animal and it was kept in plastic bag of red-yellow mixed colour. The complainant has seized the said bag and the skin of a wild animal under mahazar and after completing investigation, filed complaint. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4862 CRL.P No. 102285 of 2023 3. On the basis of the said complaint, learned Magistrate has taken cognizance and registered case in C.C.No.1742/2023 against the petitioner for aforesaid offences. The petitioner has sought quashing of the said proceedings registered against him. 4. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned AGA for respondent. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that the panchas of raid panchanama are residents of Honnapur and Madanbhavi villages and securing them within 15 minutes is impossible. He further submits that the petitioner got possession of skin of a wild animal at about 11.00 a.m. on 12.07.2022 and on the very same day, the forest officials conducted raid and seized the bag and skin of a wild animal from the possession of the petitioner. The petitioner had forty-eight hours of time to report to the nearest police station of obtaining a skin of a wild animal (Government property) and before which time, the forest officials have conducted search. Therefore, the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4862 CRL.P No. 102285 of 2023 proceedings against the petitioner are abuse of process of law. With this, he prayed for quashing of proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.1742/2023. 6. Learned AGA contend that there is presumption under Section 57 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, that a person found in possession of a skin of a wild animal is an unlawful possession. He further submits that the petitioner/accused who gave voluntary statement regarding his coming in possession of skin of a wild animal between 11.00 a.m. to 12.00 noon. Subsequently, in his further statement, he has stated that he came in possession of the said skin of a wild animal about two months ago from an unknown person. Considering the said aspect that there is no question of any compliance of Sub- Section 2 of Section 39 by the petitioner within forty-eight hours. Merely, because panchas are residents of some other village, it cannot be said that they are secured from that village. There are chances of securing the panchas even though they are residents of different village who - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4862 CRL.P No. 102285 of 2023 were present near the place of raid. On these grounds, he prayed for dismissal of the petition. 7. Having heard learned counsels, the Court has perused the chargesheet records. 8. On raid being conducted by the forest officer, the petitioner was found in possession of skin of a wild animal contained in a plastic bag on 12.07.2022 and it has been seized under mahazar in presence of panchas. The said raid mahazar has been conducted in the presence of two panchas, one is resident of Honnapur village, Kittur Taluk and another is resident of Madanbhavi village of Belagavi Taluk. In the raid mahazar, it is stated that CHC- 950 has secured the said panchas. It cannot be said that the said CHC-950 has secured those panchas from Honnapur and Madanbhavi villages. So it is also possible that the said two panchas are secured who are present near the place of raid by CHC-950. Therefore, the said contention of the learned counsel for petitioner that it is impossible to secure panchas from Honnapur and - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4862 CRL.P No. 102285 of 2023 Madanbhavi villages within 15 minutes cannot be accepted. 9. Sub-Section 2 of Section 39 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 reads thus: “(2) Any person who obtains, by any means, the possession of Government property, shall, within forty-eight hours from obtaining such possession, make a report as to the obtaining of such possession to the, nearest police station or the authorised officer and shall, if so required, hand over such property to the officer-in-charge of such police station or such authorised officer, as the case may be.” 10. Relying on the said Sub-Section 2 of Section 39, learned counsel for petitioner would contend that the petitioner came in possession of skin of a wild animal between 11.00 am and 12.00 noon on 12.07.2022, as per his voluntary statement and he had got forty-eight hours of time to report to the nearest police station of obtaining the skin of a wild animal (Government property) and - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4862 CRL.P No. 102285 of 2023 before which time, the forest officials have conducted search on him and seized the said skin of the wild animal. The voluntary statement of the accused has been recorded on 13.07.2022 and his further voluntary statement has been recorded on 15.05.2023. In the voluntary statement recorded on 13.07.2022, the petitioner has stated that he came in possession of skin of a wild animal between 11.00 a.m. to 12.00 noon on 12.07.2022 from unknown persons. 11. In his further voluntary statement recorded on 15.05.2023, he has stated that two months prior to the date of raid, he came in possession of skin of a wild animal from unknown person when he was returning from work in his land. Considering the said aspect at this stage, it cannot be said that before forty-eight hours of petitioner coming into possession of the skin of a wild animal, he has been caught and skin of a wild animal has been seized before he comply Sub-Section 2 of Section 39 of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. Considering all these aspects, there are no grounds for quashing as sought. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4862 CRL.P No. 102285 of 2023 12. In the result, the petition is dismissed. Sd/- (SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE RKM CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35