- 1 -
CRL.P No. 103157 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.103157 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
K. R. KAVIRAJ, S/O. RAJU
AGE. 40 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. HOUSE NO.601,
7TH MAIN ROAD,
NEAR BALANJANEYA TEMPLE,
M.J. NAGAR, HOSAPETE,
DIST. VIJAYANAGAR
&PETITIONER
(BY SRI. S S BETURMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH RANGE FOREST OFFICER,
R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD-580011
&RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. V.S.KALASURMATH, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C.,
SEEKING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND QUASH THE ENTIRE
PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO.892/2017 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC, HOSAPETE, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S
24(a), (d), (f), (g), (gg), (h), 73 (d), 80, 82, 82B AND 109 OF
KARNATAKA FOREST ACT 1963 AND RULE 144 AND 165 OF THE
KARNATAKA FOREST RULES 1969, AND SECTION 379 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
- 2 -
CRL.P No. 103157 of 2022
The police, after investigation, submitted a charge sheet
for the offences punishable under Sections 2(7), 6(iv), 24(a),
24(g)(gg), 24(a), 62, 64A, 73(d), 82, 82, 82B & 109 of the
Karnataka Forest Act, 1969 and Rules 144 & 165 of the
Karnataka Forest Rules, Section 4(1), 4(1A) and 21 of the
Mines and Minerals (Development & Regulation) Act, 1957,
alleging that the petitioner-accused by encroaching forest area
has excavated iron ore. The learned Magistrate, after accepting
the charge sheet, took cognizance of the aforesaid offences and
issued summons to the petitioner-accused. Taking exception to
the same, the petitioner-accused is before this Court.
2.
The Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that the offences alleges against the petitioner are
punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding two
years and as such, cognizance taken for the offences alleged
against the petitioner after the expiry of two years from the
date of registration of the FIR is impermissible as specified in
Section 468(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
- 3 -
3.
The
learned
High
Court
Government
Pleader
appearing for the respondent-State submits that the charge
sheet material clearly discloses that the petitioner has
committed the aforesaid offences and the learned Magistrate,
after perusing the charge sheet, has rightly taken cognizance of
the aforesaid offences alleged against the petitioner.
4.
The FIR was lodged on 19.11.2012 and the police
after investigation laid charge sheet on 18.10.2016. The
cognizance
was
taken
by
the
learned
Magistrate
on
27.09.2017.
5.
The Hon9ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarah
Mathew Vs. Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases By its
Director Dr. K.M.Cherian and Others1., 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:
1 (2014)2 SCC 62
- 4 -
<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
- 5 -
rights, remedies, and liabilities of private individuals
were determined by an immediate reference to such
maxims, many of which obtained in the Roman law,
and are so manifestly founded in reason, public
convenience, and necessity, as to find a place in the
code of every civilised nation. In more modern times,
the increase of commerce, and of national and social
intercourse, has occasioned a corresponding increase in
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.