IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 730 OF 2024 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS))

BETWEEN:

SRI. PAVAN KUMAR M R AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, S/O. RAGHUVEER M N, R/AT. NO. 273, 6^TH B MAIN ROAD, KSRTC LAYOUT, J.P.NAGAR, 2^ND STAGE, BANGALORE-560078.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. SANDESH J.CHOUTA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. ABHISHEK K., ADVOCATE)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY FOREST RANGE OFFICER, FOREST TRAFFIC SQUAD, K.G.HALLI, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT, BENGALURU-560001.

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. M.R.PATIL, HCGP)

D K igitally signed by B MAHENDRAKUMAR B K Location: HIGH THIS CRLIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC BY THE MAHENDRAKUMAR C KA O R U N R A T T O A F KA D D H at A e: R 2 W 0 A 2 D 5. 0 B 2 E . N 20 CH ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS

16:40:27 +0530 HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.19150/2021 ARISING OUT OF PRIVATE COMPLAINT FOR OFFENCE P/U/S 2(2), (31) 9, 39, 42, 44, 47, 48, 48A, 49B R/W 50, 51, 55 AND 58(C)(J) OF THE WILD LIFE (PROTECTION) ACT, 1972, PENDING ON THE FILE OF XXX ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (30^TH ACMM) AT BENGALURU. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

ORAL ORDER

1. The petitioner, who is facing trial for offences punishable under Sections 2(2), 2(31), 9, 39, 42, 44, 47, 48, 48A, and 49B read with Sections 50, 51, 55, and 58(C)(J) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, has approached this Court seeking relief.

2. The prosecution case is that, upon receiving credible information that the petitioner was in possession of deer and kangaroo skin without a license, the Assistant Conservator of Forests issued a search warrant under Section 50(8) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. Pursuant to the search warrant issued on 08.08.2021, the Range Forest Officer (RFO) conducted a search of the petitioner’s premises and discovered certain prohibited articles under the Act. Subsequently, the RFO filed a complaint under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 before the learned Magistrate. After perusing the complaint, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences and permitted the respondent to conduct further investigation as per Section 50(8) of the Act, 1972. Thereafter, the Assistant Conservator of Forests conducted an investigation and submitted a report on 20.12.2021, concluding that the petitioner was in possession of prohibited wildlife articles without a license.

3. Sri. Sandesh J. Chouta, learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioner, submitted as follows:

• The search warrant was issued without first registering a case against the petitioner for contravening the provisions of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. Section 50(8) of the Act specifically empowers the concerned officer to issue a search warrant only for the purpose of making an investigation, which presupposes prior registration of a case.

• The complaint was filed without conducting an investigation and without annexing the list of witnesses, contrary to the procedural requirements.

• The Assistant Conservator of Forests conducted an investigation only after the Magistrate had already taken cognizance, and subsequently submitted a final report on 20.12.2021, which is in violation of Section 50(8) of the Act, 1972.

• In support of his contention, he relied on the decisions of the co-

ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.10873/2023, disposed of on 17.11.2023, and Crl.P.No.5952/2023 & connected matters, disposed of on 06.10.2023.

4. The learned High Court Government Pleader contended that there is no mandatory requirement to register a case before filing a complaint. He argued that the learned Magistrate, after perusing the complaint, rightly took cognizance of the offences and permitted the Assistant Conservator of Forests to conduct further investigation under Section