Limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C. bars cognizance of offences punishable with imprisonment if not filed within 6 months from the date of the complaint, invalidating the prosecution of quasi-judicial actions by public servants absent any mens rea.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner is at the doors of this Court calling in question proceedings in C.C.No.315 of 2024 pending before the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Hassan arising out of complaint filed under Section 2 00 of the Cr.P.C., for offences punishable under Sections 2 and 3 of the VAN (Sanrakshan Evan Samvardhan) Adhiniyam, 1980 and under Rule 15 of the Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Rules, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ and ‘the Rules’ for short).

2. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:-

It is the case of the prosecution that one T.D. Dasegowda, Son of late Dyavegowda submits an application under the Right to Information Act to the Public Information Officer and the Tahsildar seeking certain documents including copies of mutation, orders of higher authorities and other Court orders relating to recording the land as forest, of a particular property situated in Sy. No.22 measuring 61 acres and 32 guntas located in Tyavalli Village, Shanthigrama Hobli, Hassan Taluk. The Tahsildar issues an endorsement on 28-10-2020 conveying that the documents requested by the applicant with respect to entry of Forest in the record of rights of the aforesaid property was not available in the office records. The applicant, under the RTI Act, then takes recourse to filing an appeal before the petitioner under Sections 2 4 and 49 of the Right to Information Act and Section 136 (2) of the KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE ACT , 1964.

3. In the said appeal, it was the case of T.D. Dasegowda that an inadvertent entry of word ‘forest’ in the record of rights in relation to Sy.No.22 had crept in and sought restoration of the RTC entry as ‘Sarkari Gomala’. The said appeal was registered as R.A.No.296 of 2020-21. The petitioner, in the discharge of his duties as Assistant Commissioner, hears of the matter from 23-07-2021 to 17-12-2021, affords opportunity to both the Tahsildar and the applicant and on perusal of relevant documents observed that Forest Department has failed to provide any document demonstrating the classification of the land in question as a forest land, except presenting particular record of rights. On the said examination of documents and consideration of arguments presented, the petitioner passes an order on 5-01-2022 directing restoration of the entry in the record of rights as Sarkari Gomala. The petitioner further observes that it was open to the Forest Department to pursue transfer of title in its name by making appropriate proposal before the Deputy Commissioner as restoration was only as Sarkari Gomala.

4. The Forest Department, claiming to be aggrieved by the order of the petitioner, passed under Section 136 (2) of the KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE ACT prefers a revision petition before the Deputy Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner on 26-09-2023 remands the matter back to the Assistant Commissioner for hearing afresh, on the reasons so rendered in the said order. The Deputy Commissioner further directed that the Assistant Commissioner should conclude the hearing of the matter within six months.

5. When things stood thus, the Forest Department registers a private complaint against the petitioner for violation of the provisions of the Act and the Rules. The allegation is that the petitioner while passing the order in R.A.No.296 of 2020-21 has favoured individual’s interest over public interest and has passed the order against the respondent/Forest Department. The con