IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 13123 OF 2024 BETWEEN:

1. SRI MAHESHA S/O LATE BYRA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT DIDDAHALLI VILLAGE KODAGU DISTRICT - 01.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. PAVAN B.K., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY RANGE FOREST OFFICER, ANE CHOWKUR WILDLIFE RANGE, ANE CHOWKUR, REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE - 01.

Digitally …RESPONDENT signed by R (BY SRI. M.V. ANOOP KUMAR, HCGP FOR R1)

HEMALATHA Location: THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C (U/S 528 BNSS)

High Court of BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS Karnataka HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE FIR IN FOC NO.1/2020-2021 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 24(e) OF KARNATAKA FOREST ACT, 1963, SECTIONS 27,35,38(v) AND 51 OF WILDLIFE PROTECTION ACT, 1972, REGISTERED BY DEPUTY RANGE FOREST OFFICER, ANECHOWKUR WILDLIFE RANGE, ANECHOWKUR AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN FOC NO.1/2020-2021, PENDING ON THE FILE OF HONBLE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, PONNAMPET AGAINST THE PETITIONER.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner challenges the registration of the FIR for the offence punishable under Section 24(e) of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 (for short, ‘the Act’).

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader (HCGP) for the State.

3. The primary contention of the petitioner is that the Deputy Range Forest Officer is not competent to investigate the offences alleged against the petitioner, as provided under Section 62A of the Act. It would be useful for this Court to extract paragraph No.5 of the order passed by this Court in Crl.P.No.101990/2022, which reads as under:

"5. The FIR was registered on 03.10.2012. The Police, after investigation, submitted the charge sheet on 27.11.2020. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the aforesaid offences on 05.08.2021. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sara Mathew (supra), while examining the issue Whether for the purposes of computing the period of limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C. the relevant date is the date of filing of the complaint or the date of institution of the prosecution or whether relevant date is the date on which a Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence, at paragraphs 17, 18 & 39, has held as follows:

“17. It is true that in Bharat Kale [Bharat Damodar Kale v. State of A.P., (2003) 8 SCC 559 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 39] and Japani Sahoo [Japani Sahoo v. Chandra Sekhar Mohanty, (2007) 7 SCC 394 : (2007) 3 SCC (Cri) 388] this Court has referred to two important legal maxims. We may add that in Vanka Radhamanohari [Vanka Radhamanohari v. Vanka Venkata Reddy, (1993) 3 SCC 4:1993 SCC (Cri) 571] , to which our attention has been drawn by the counsel, it is stated that the general rule of limitation is based on the Latin maxim vigilantibus et non dormientibus, jura subveniunt, which means the vigilant and not the sleepy, are assisted by laws. We are, however, unable to accept the submission that reliance placed on legal maxims was improper. We are mindful of the fact that legal maxims are not mandatory rules but their importance as guiding principles can hardly be underestimated.

18. Herbert Broom in the Preface to the first edition of his classical work Legal Maxims (as seen in Broom's Legal Maxims, 10th Edn., 1939) stated:

“In the Legal Science, perhaps more frequently than in any other, reference must be made to the first principles. Indeed, a very limited acquaintance with the earlier reports will show the importance which was attached to the acknowledged maxims of the law, in periods when civilisation and refinement had made comparatively little progress. In the ruder ages, without doubt, the great majority of questions respecting the rights, remedies, and liabilities of