B. S. RAJENDRA PRASAD, J.

( 1 ) ALL these petitions involve common questions of law and facts and common arguments are advanced by both the sides. Hence they have been disposed of by common order.

( 2 ) ALL these petitions are filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code.

( 3 ) CRIMINAL petition No. 2853/2002 is for setting aside the order dated 20-7-2002 passed in FIR No. 11/2001-02 by the Range forest Officer, Kudremukh, wherein the learned Magistrate had permitted the Range forest Officer to investigate the case against the accused for offences under Section 24 of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963, Section 35 (6) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, and Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980.

( 4 ) CRIMINAL Petition No. 2854/2002. 2855/2002 and 2859/2002 are filed for setting aside the order in FIR Nos. 10/2001-02, 12/2001-02, 16/2001-02, respectively, passed by the Range Forest Officer, wherein the learned Magistrate had permitted the range Forest Officer to investigate into the cases against the accused for the said offences.

( 5 ) THE Court has heard the arguments of Sri C. V. Nagesh, learned Counsel on behalf of the accused and Sri Belliappa, learned hcgp on behalf of State of Karnataka.

( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously contended that the material on record clearly shows that the order impugned is illegal and improper and the learned Magistrate was totally unjustified in permitting the Range Forest Officer to investigate into the case. The learned counsel also contends that the said offences are noncognizable offences and the learned Magistrate in pursuance of Section 155 of the Code of Criminal Procedure could have referred the matter for investigation to the Police officer and none-else. The learned counsel also contends that the Range Forest Officer cannot be treated as a Police Officer within the meaning of Section 2 (16) of the Karnataka Police Act. Hence, the learned counsel prays for allowing the petitions.

( 7 ) ON the contrary, the learned HCGP strongly contended that the material on record clearly shows that the orders impugned are legal and proper. The learned magistrate, after being satisfied that there had been complaint for commission of said offences, had permitted the Range Forest officer to investigate into the case and the order of the learned Magistrate cannot be found fault at all, particularly in the light of the fact that the Range Forest Officer is also deemed to be a Police Officer for the purpose of exercise of power under Section 155 of Criminal Procedure Code. Hence the learned counsel prays for dismissal of the petitions.

( 8 ) ON perusal of material on record, it is seen that in all the four cases, the Range forest Officer has filed complaints before the learned Magistrate alleging commission of offences punishable under the said provisions of law. Along with the complaint, the range Forest Officer had also sought for permission to investigate into the case. The learned Magistrate on 20-7-2002 had passed an order permitting the Range Forest Officer to investigate into the cases. The accused, feeling aggrieved, have come up before this court with the instant petitions.

( 9 ) FROM the settled principle of law, it is clear that while exercising powers, this Court has to exercise with great care, caution and circumspection. All the said offences are non-cognizable offences. The provisions of section 155 (2) deals with regard to investigation of non-cognizable offences. The statutory provisions in this regard make it clear that the Magistrate on getting information about the commission of non-cognizable offence could refer a complaint to the Police officer for investigation and permit him to investigate into the case. In the cases on hand, the Range Forest Officer had been permitted by the learned Magistrate to investigate into the cases. As per the submission of the learned counsel for petitioner. The learned Magistrate is totally unjustified in law in pass

Click Here to Read the rest of this document