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

2022 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 62046

- 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

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
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top