IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 11609 OF 2025 BETWEEN:

SRI. SAYED MAZAR @ MAZAR, S/O SAYED MAMUD, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT NO.3333/2, NEAR FIRDOUS FUNCTION HALL, PULIKESHI ROAD, MANDI MOHALLA, MYSORE – 570 001.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. GAURAV SUBRAMANYAM, ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by SANJEEVINI J KARISHETTY 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, Location:

BY NAZARBAD POLICE STATION , High Court of Karnataka MYSURU CITY, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT COMPLEX, BENGALURU - 560 001.

2. SRI. SANTHRUPTH H. V., S/O LATE H.C.VISHNUMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, MANAGING DIRECTOR, GOPALAGOWDA SHANTHAWERI HOSPITAL, NAZARBAD CIRCLE, MYSORE CITY – 570 010.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP FOR R1)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AS AGAINST THE PETITIONER (ACCUSED NO.3) IN S.C.NO.74/2022 (CRIME NO.20/2019) PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE COURT AT MYSURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S/ 86, 87 OF KARNATAKA FOREST ACT.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayer:

"Quash the entire criminal proceedings initiated as against the petitioner (accused No.3) in S.C.No.74/2022 (Crime No.20/2019) pending on the file of the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge Court at Mysuru for the offence punishable under section 86, 87 of Karnataka Forest Act in the interest of justice and equity."

2. Heard Sri.Gaurav Subramanyam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.B.N.Jagadeesha, learned Addl. SPP appearing for respondent No.1 and have perused the material on record.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the issue in the lis stands covered by the judgment rendered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.5845 of 2024 disposed on 10.03.2025, wherein it has held as follows:

"1. The petitioner, who is being prosecuted for offences punishable under Sections 86 and 87 of the Karnataka Forest Act, has approached this Court seeking relief.

2. The prosecution alleges that the petitioner was found in possession of 16 kg of sandalwood billets without a permit.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, under Section 62A of the Karnataka Forest Act, the investigation of an offence punishable under Sections 86 and 87 can be conducted only by an officer not below the rank of Range Forest Officer. Therefore, the investigation conducted by the Police Inspector, culminating in the filing of the charge sheet, is vitiated, as the Police Inspector lacks the authority to investigate an offence under the Act.

4. In response, the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State submitted that the petitioner was found in possession of 16 kg of sandalwood billets without a permit. He argued that the veracity of the allegation should be considered at trial and cannot be examined in this petition. Accordingly, he sought the dismissal of the petition.

5. The arguments of the learned counsel for both parties have been duly considered.

6. Section 62A of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963, states that any Forest Officer not below the rank of a Range Forest Officer may, with regard to offences under this Act, exercise the powers conferred on an officer in charge of a police station under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Therefore, only a Range Forest Officer or an officer of higher rank is authorized to conduct an investigation into offences under the Karnataka Forest Act.

7. In the present case, the investigation was conducted by a Police Inspector, who is not authorized under Section 62A of the Karnataka Forest Act, and the charge sheet was submitted by him. Consequently, the cognizance taken of the offence based on the final report submi