1. These petitions are heard and disposed of together by this common order as the allegations are similar against the petitioners.

2. The petitioners claim to be wild life biologists, architects, lawyers, coffee planters and businessmen. One of the petitioners is also a retired Range Forest Officer with an impeccable record and who is a recipient of the Chief Minister's Medal for outstanding service. They are avid nature lovers, who have been carrying on forest and wildlife conservation for over four decades and have campaigned extensively for the protection of forests in the Kudremukh area. Kudremukh forest was declared as a National Park in the year 1987, wherein ecological studies and sustained campaigns were undertaken by Dr.Ullas Karanth, who has highlighted the need to protect the bio-diversity of the area.

It is stated that the sustained campaign and initiation of the petitioners and others resulted in the Supreme Court of India imposing a total ban on mining and all ancillary activities in the Kudremukh region with effect from 31.12.2005. Following the closure of the mining operations, the former Deputy Conservator of Forests, Kudremukh has filed a series of complaints against the petitioners and others in the courts of the Magistrate at Sringeri, Belthangady, Mudigere and Karkala, alleging offences of surreptitiously venturing into the reserve forest area in the guise of compiling video footage depicting the extent of environmental damage caused by the unrestricted mining operations in the National Park; preparation of a scientific report depicting the sedimentation in Bhadra river caused by mining activities. In this regard, the allegation is that in order to carry out these activities, the petitioners had entered the Kudremukh National Park area, without any authority and thereby had committed offences punishable under the provisions of the Wild life Protection Act, 1972 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'WLP Act', for brevity) as well as offences punishable under the provisions of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'KF Act', for brevity) . The petitioners had initially questioned the initiation of proceedings before the competent District and Sessions Court, Chikmagalur, which has considered their petition and has dismissed the same holding that the petitioners would have to stand trial in respect of the allegations. It is in this background that the petitioners are before this court.

3. The learned Senior Advocate Shri Udaya Holla, appearing for the Counsel for the petitioners, would submit that atleast ten petitions before this court have been allowed in respect of the very same charges brought against the petitioners and others, and these petitions and three more are in the series, sought to be foisted against the petitioners on false and exaggerated charges of unauthorized entry into the forest and commission of other offences punishable under the provisions of the aforesaid legislation.

The learned Senior Advocate would straight away point out that notwithstanding the reasoning given by the Court below as to the maintainability of the proceedings against the petitioners, there are two glaring aspects, which have been overlooked by the courts below, which ought to have dismissed the complaint in the first instance. It is pointed out that in the first information report, the officer has not indicated the date and time of the alleged offences committed by the petitioners. This is also not forthcoming in the charge-sheet that followed. Therefore, the very basis of the complaint is eroded on account of the necessary particulars not being stated and it is impossible to frame a charge, which the petitioners can meet, without reference to the time and date of the incident.

Secondly, it is pointed out that all the offences alleged would attract a maximum punishment of imprisonment of three years, in which event, under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 (Hereinaft