IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12460 OF 2023 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS))

BETWEEN:

THE SENIOR INTELLIGENCE OFFICER DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE, BANGALORE ZONAL UNIT, NO.8 (P) 2, I STAGE, 3RD BLOCK, HBR LAYOUT, OPPOSITE BDA COMPLEX, KALYAN NAGAR POST, BENGALURU-560043 …PETITIONER (BY SRI.KUMAR.M.N, CGSC)

AND:

1. SRI. KARTHIKPRABHU Digitally AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, signed by S/O ALLIMUTHU, REKHA R R/AT NO.47, MANJAMALAI STREET, Location:

High Court RAMANATHAPURAM, VTC, KOODAPAKKAM, of Karnataka VALUDAVUR POST, PUDUCHERRY-605502.

NOW RESIDING AT NO.619, 100 FEET ROAD, 6^TH STAGE, 5^TH BLOCK, BANASHANKARI, BENGALURU - 560062.

2. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FOREST AND ECOLOGY, M.S.BUILDING, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560001.

3. RANGE FOREST OFFICER, FOREST DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, KAGGALIPURA RANGE, KAGGALIPURA, BENGALURU - 560082.

4. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BANNERUGHATTA BIOLOGICAL PART, WILDLIFE RESCUE AND REHABILITATION CENTER, BEHIND BANNERUGHATTA BIOLOGICAL PARK, BANNERUGHATTA, BENGALURU-560083.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. A V BAGUR, ADVOCATE FOR R1;

SRI.VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP FOR R2 TO R4)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN CRP NO.250/2023 IN THE FILE OF THE LXIV ADDL.

CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE DATED 07.10.2023.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI

ORAL ORDER

In this petition filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner who is complainant before the trial Court has challenged the order dated 07.10.2023 passed by the Sessions Court in Crl.RP.No.250/2023, which was filed by accused challenging rejection of the application filed by him under Section 451 Cr.P.C by the trial Court, thereby the Sessions Court allowed the application filed by the accused seeking release of the seized animals to his custody.

2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to by their ranks before the trial Court.

3. In support of the petition, the complainant has contended that application under Section 451 of Cr.P.C is not maintainable. The animals in question were seized from the possession of accused under the provisions of Customs Act, 1962 for violation of the said Act and for importing restricted items without obtaining requisite license from the Directorate General of Foreign Trade. According to Section 3 (3) of Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 r/w Section 2(23) of the Customs Act, 1962 import of exortic species is a violation under the Customs Act. Consequently, the animals in question were liable for confiscation under Section 111 of Customs Act.

3.1 In connection with the violation of the above provisions, accused No.4 was arrested and produced before the trial Court along with remand application. However, he was released on bail. The seizure of the animals were made under the provisions of Customs Act, 1962 only. Section 110-A of Customs Act makes provisions for release of seized goods and in the light of the same, provisions of Section 451 Cr.P.C cannot be invoked.

3.2 The learned Sessions Judge has decided the application on the premise that the seized animals do not fall under the definition of 'Goods' under Section 2(22) of the Customs Act.

3.3 During the course of his statement recorded under Section 108 of Customs Act, accused has stated that several of the animals are not under his ownership and are entrusted to him for safeguarding. Therefore, he is not entitled of interim custody of these animals. As admitted by the accused, these animals include those animals acquired from Silambarasan Muthuramalingam, while smuggling them at the airport. The animals seized from Silambarasan Muthuramalingam were brought into the Country in contravention of Customs Baggage Rules, 2016.

3.4 In the ligh