Seizure of property and registration of FIR must be in accordance with the provisions of the Karnataka Forest Act. Allegations in the FIR must be sufficient to sustain the charges brought against the accused.

JUDGMENT

1. On 2/5/2015, the respondent/police having received credible information and based on the said information, they seized wooden logs and Canter vehicle transporting the said wooden logs and registered a case against the petitioner and other accused for the offence punishable under Ss. 80, 33, 71(A) and 62 of the Karnataka Forest Act and also under Sec. 165 and 144 of the Karnataka Forest Rules and so also under Ss. 279 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. The police, after investigation submitted charge-sheet before the learned Magistrate against the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that Sec. 62(3) of the Karnataka Forest Act 1963 specifies that every officer seizing any property under this Sec. shall, as soon as may be, make a report of such seizure where an offence on account of which seizure has been made is in respect of timber belonging to the Government, to the concerned authorized officer under Sec. 71-A; and in other cases, to the magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence on account of which the seizure has been made. It is further contended that in the present case, admittedly wooden logs does not belong to the Government, and under such circumstance, seizure of the wooden logs and registration of FIR against the petitioner under Sec. 62(2) of the act is not in accordance with law. The alleged offences against the petitioner is cognizable and non-bailable, and under such circumstances, the police without registration of the FIR have seized wooden logs and the same is without authority of law. In support of his contentions, he had placed reliance on the following decisions:

i) Crl.P.No.4263/2020 (Badrul Muneer V/s. State and State of Karnataka disposed of by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide its order dtd. 13/1/2021;

ii) 2019 SCC Online MP Page 4020 (Ramesh V/s. State of Madhya Pradesh);

iii) 2020 SCC Online Guj Page 1350 (Jitendra Kumar Gopaldas Rijwani V/s. State of Gujarat;

iv) ILR (2015) M.P., 1589 (Rajveer Singh V/s. State of M.P and Others).

He further submits that the allegation made in the First Information Report does not disclose that the commission of the offence under Sec. 420 of the Indian Penal Code and charge- sheet submitted by the police after investigation requires to be quashed.

4. On the other hand, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent would submit that the petitioner had transported the wooden logs without obtaining license which is in violation of the provisions of the Karnataka Forest Act and Rules and thereby, have committed the alleged offences. Hence, filing of the charge-sheet against the petitioner is in accordance with law and does not require any interference.

5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

6. Sec. 62(3) of the Karnataka Forest Act specifies that every officer seizing any property under the said Sec. shall, as soon as may be, make a report of such seizure where an offence on account of which the seizure has been made is in respect of the property belonging to the Government, to the authorized officer under Sec. 71-A of the Act and in other cases, to the magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence on account of which the seizure has been made.

7. In the present case, the property seized does not belong to the Government. The respondent instead of submitting a report to the jurisdictional Magistrate has reported the same to the authorized officer as specified under Sec. 71-A of the Karnataka Forest Act. Hence, seizure of the property and registration of the FIR by Respondent No.1 is contrary to the provisions of Sec. 62(3) of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963.

8. The offences alleged against the petitioner are cognizable and non-bailable. The police without registration of the FIR for the alleged offences which are cognizable and non-bailable could not have conducted inv