12/08/2017 Delivery | Westlaw India

Westlaw India Delivery Summary

Request made by : IP USER

Request made on: Saturday, 12 August, 2017 at 00:17 IST

Client ID: inapu-1

Content Type: Cases
Title : State by Range Forest Officer, Srinivaspur v K. R.
R Amesh Kumar S/o (Late) Ramaiah
Delivery selection: Current Document
Number of documents delivered: 1

2017 Thomson Reuters South Asia Private Limited

12/08/2017 Delivery | Westlaw India Page 2

Karnataka High Court

25 February 2016

State by Range Forest Officer, Srinivaspur

K. R. R Amesh Kumar S/o (Late) Ramaiah

Case No : Criminal Revision Petition No. 658/2015

Bench : A. V. Chandrashekara
Citation : 2016 Indlaw KAR 1740
The Order of the Court was as follows :
1. Heard the learned HCGP in regard to admission of this matter.
2. The order dated 8.10.2014 passed by the Civil Judge and JMFC, Srinvaspur, in
CC.No.127/2007 is called in question. By the said order the learned JMFC has chosen to drop
the proceedings in terms of 258 of Cr.P.C., relating to the initiation of proceedings against this
respondent for offences punishable under Sections 24(e) (g) (gg) (h) and 73(d) of the
Karnataka Forest Act and Section 2 of the Karnataka Forest Conservation Act, 1963. The
allegation against this respondent, who is shown as accused in the said case is that he had
encroached the forest land to an extent of 52 acres in Sy.No.2 of Hosahudya village,
Srinvasapura Taluk. The case of the respondent is that he has purchased the same during the
years 1999 to 2001 through various sale deeds from the lawful owners and at no point of time
this was a forest land.
3. The Range Forest Officer, Srinivasapura, (RFO for short) chose to file a case against this
respondent for the above offences. In the meanwhile, the respondent had approached this
Court in W.P.No.39676/2010 (GM-FOR) requesting the Court to quash the order passed in
RA.No.41/2007 dated 16.9.2010. This writ petition came to be disposed of with a direction to
the Deputy Conservator of Forests, Deputy Commissioner of Kolar District and Deputy Director
of Land Reforms to conduct a fresh joint survey in the presence of the accused. Permission
was also accorded to the petitioner therein to produce any document to have his say during
the joint survey, in support of his case.
4. Re-survey was conducted only by the Deputy Conservator of Forests and not by the two
authorities as directed earlier. Therefore, the accused again approached this Court in
W.P.No.12996/2011 (GM-FOR). The said writ petition came to be allowed quashing the order
passed in RA.No.168/2011 dated 26.3.2012, wherein this Court has specifically held that the
impugned order dated 26.3.2012 was not maintainable since the Deputy Commissioner and
the Deputy Director of Land Records had not participated in the said joint survey. Again a
direction was given to complete the process, as early as possible. After conducting fresh
survey, the Deputy Commissioner, Kolar District chose to submit a report to the Principal
Secretary, Revenue Department on 8.10.2013 specifically mentioning that the lands so
purchased by Mr.Ramesh Kumar, the respondent herein, are at a distance of about 500 meters
12/08/2017 Delivery | Westlaw India Page 3

from the forest area. This aspect of the matter has been taken into consideration by the trial
Court while dropping the proceedings.
5. Though the RFO has filed a complaint, in terms of Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C., he is the Station
House Officer of a Police Station as per Section 62-A of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963. Infact,
all the Range Forest Offices in the State of Karnataka are deemed to be the Police Stations as
per the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Range Forest Officers are of such
Ranges would be the Police Officers. This legal fiction is found in Section 62-A of the Karnataka
Forest Act.
Therefore, the complaint is not really one under Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C. Infact, the learned
Judge has considered all the aspects in detail and has held that no useful purpose would be
served if criminal proceedings are considered. He is justified in invoking Section 258 of Cr.P.C.,
since the case on hand is virtually a police case under Section 62-A of the Karnataka Forest
Act though initiated in the form of a complaint by an Officer other than a Police Officer. Office
of RFO is a Police Station in terms of Section 2(s) of Cr.P.C., and the proceedings conducted by
the RFO is 'Investigation' in terms of Section 2(h) of Cr.P.C. In this view of the matter,
dropping of the proceedings under Section 258 of Cr.P.C., is perfectly justified. No good
grounds are made out to admit the present petition. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
Petition dismissed
2015 Thomson Reuters South Asia Private Limited

This database contains editorial enhancements that are not a part of the original material. The database may also have mistakes or omissions. Users are requested to verify the contents with the
relevant original text(s) such as, the certified copy of the judgment, Government Gazettes, etc. Thomson Reuters bears no liability whatsoever for the adequacy, accuracy, satisfactory quality or
suitability of the content.