SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 32569

B RAMA SUBBA REDDY – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
CRL.P 101250/2022



- 1 -

CRL.P No. 101250 of 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101250 OF 2022 (482-)

BETWEEN:

1.

B RAMA SUBBA REDDY

AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,

OCC. DIRECTOR,

VNC COLLEGE, SWATI NILAYA

BASAVERWARA EXTENSION, HOSPETE

2.

GIRISH K.M NANDIYAL

AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCC. DGM

NO. 451/1600, DIVYA NILAYA

6TH CROSS,

BASAVERWARA EXTENSION, HOSPETE

3.

SALIGRAM PRASAD

AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCC. MANAGER,

P-22, CITY CENTRE,

BOKORO STEEL CITY,

JHARKHAND-827004

4.

G. VEERAREDDY

AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

OCC. MINING ENGINEER INCHARGE,

POST. SUNNAPURAL PALLI,

P O KHOTH PALLI, DIST. KADAPA

STATE. ANDHRA PRADESH

5.

RAVIKUMAR KARNAM

ABED ABOUT 43 YEARS,

V N

BADIGER

Digitally

signed by V

N BADIGER

Location:

DHARWAD

Date:

2022.04.21

10:56:23

+0530

- 2 -

CRL.P No. 101250 of 2022

OCC. ASSISTANT MANAGER,

R/O. K. RAM MURTHI 30335

SUNMUI STREET, PRODTHUR,

DIST. KADAPA

STATE. ANDHARA PRADESH

6.

M. OBALA REDDY,

AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,

OCC ASSISTANT MANAGER,

R/O POST. AMAKA PALLI,

PO KHOTH PALLI,

TQ. PULIVENDLA, DIST. KADAPA

STATE ANDHARA PRADESH

7.

VEERUPAKSH KAKANUR

AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

OCC. MINES PORMAN,

C/O SHIVAPPA KAKANUR,

POST. KALKOND, TQ. SIGGAN,

DIST. HAVERI

8.

M V SUNDARESH

AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,

OCC. MINES PORMAN,

C/O. S K SOMASUNDAR ,

BACK SIDE OF RAJ MAHAL EXTENSION,

LANGANI MANDIR,

TQ AND DIST, SHIMOGGA

9.

MADIG RAMANAYYA M RANGAPPA

AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,

OCC. MINES PORMAN,

POST. ANKIREDDYPALLI,

TQ. KOLIMIGUNDLA, DIST. KARNUL,

STATE.ANDHARA PRADESH

10. V N SURESH BABU

AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,

- 3 -

CRL.P No. 101250 of 2022

OCC. MINESMAIT,

SAROJA S BALLARY ROAD,

BEHIND ITI COLLEGE ROAD,

DHOBI STEET, HOSPETE

11. V GOPAL REDDI S/O P NARAYAN REDDI

AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCC. MINESMAIT,

R/O HOUSE NO.4-200-425,

D R Y S NAGAR, TQ. DHONE,

DIST. KARNUL, STATE. ANDHRA PRADESH

&PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. ARAVIND D KULKARNI.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

THROUGH RANGE FOREST OFFICER, KALLAHALLI

GASTU, HOSAPETE DIVISION, BALLARI,

REPRSENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

HIGH COURT OF KARNATKA

DHARWAD BENCH

&RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. RAMESH CHIGARI, ADVOCATE)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 482 OF CR.P.C.

SEEKING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND QUASH THE ORDER

DATED 05.07.2017 IN C.C.NO.890/2017 ON THE FILE OF PRL.

CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC HOSAPETE, FOR THE OFFENCES

PUNISHABLE UNDER SEC. 24(a), (d), (f), (g), (gg), (h), 80, 82,

82B, 109 OF THE KARNATAKA FOREST ACT, UNDER RULE 144,

165, OF THE KARNATAKA FOREST ACT AND UNDER SECTION

4(1), 4(IA) AND 21 OF M.M.R.D. ACT AND ALL FURTHER

PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO THE SAID ORDER.

- 4 -

CRL.P No. 101250 of 2022

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS

DAY, COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

The learned High Court Government Pleader accepts

notice for the respondent.

2.

A charge sheet is filed by the Range Forest

Officer

alleging

that

the

petitioners-accused

after

encroaching the forest land, destroyed the trees and are

carrying on the mining activities illegally. The learned

Magistrate by order dated 27.09.2017, took cognizance of

the offences punishable under Sections 24(a), (d), (f), (g),

(gg), (h), 73(d), 80, 82, 83B, 109 of the Karnataka Forest

Act, 1963, and Sections 4, 4(1), 4(1A), 21 of the Mines

and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (for

short, 8the MMDR Act9), and issued summons to the

petitioners-accused.

3.

The

learned

counsel

appearing

for

the

petitioners submits that the alleged offence has taken

place on 19.11.2012, but cognizance of the offences

- 5 -

CRL.P No. 101250 of 2022

alleged against the petitioners is taken by the learned

Magistrate on 27.09.2017 after the expiry of the time

specified under Section 468 of Cr.P.C. He further submits

that taking cognizance of the offences alleged to have

been committed under the provi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top