Karnataka High Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Under Wildlife Protection Act Against State Horticulture Minister SS Mallikarjun

The Karnataka High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings pending under several provisions of the Wildlife (Protections) Act and the IPC against State's Horticulture minister S.S. Mallikarjun, his brother S S Ganesh and two others.

Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed their plea observing that there were glaring irregularities in the procedure adopted in the case.

“Finding no procedure or the procedure completely topsyturvy in the cases at hand would mean that the entire proceedings need to be obliterated as glaring procedure aberrations noticed cannot be countenanced and further proceedings cannot be permitted to continue by a fiat of this Court as they are all incurable illegalities cutting at the root of the matter and become an abuse of the process of the law.”

In 2022, the police received credible information about an individual named Senthil selling wildlife products like animal skin, antlers, and teeth in front of S.V. Complex, Bellary Road. Senthil was apprehended, and a case was registered against him under several sections of the Wild Life (Protection) Act.

During the investigation, Senthil revealed that he was rearing wild animals on the instructions of the owner of Kalleshwar Rice Mills. This information led to a search at the mill, which was communicated to the Assistant Conservator of Forests, Davanagere.

The Range Forest Officer filed a complaint before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Davanagere, and the Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Section 51 of the Act, directing further investigation under Section 202(1) of the CrPC. Subsequently, after investigation, an FIR was registered for various offences under the Act, and a Minister was added as an accused.

A final report was filed, and the Magistrate took cognizance once again against multiple accused individuals for offences under Section 51 of the Act on 08-05-2023. 

The petitioners argued that the procedure in which the investigation of the complaint was to be done under the Wildlife Offence Report No.1/2022 should have been completed therein as it is a complete code by itself. The registration of the second FIR in the teeth of the first FIR was clearly barred in law as there can be one crime registered for one offence. They submitted that the entire procedure that is required for the conduct of search and seizure is all thrown to the winds in the cases at hand. 

Placing reliance on the Wildlife Crime Investigation Handbook, it was argued that Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. under which power is exercised by the Magistrate should have been taken to its logical conclusion and there was no question of reference being made under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. It is her further contention that taking dual cognizance is contrary to law. Likewise, it was argued that a hybrid investigation or trial is impermissible in law.

Findings:

The bench noted that the offences alleged against these petitioners are the ones punishable under Sections 9, 39, 40, 48A, 14 49B, 50, 51, 55(b) and 57 of the Act. For offences punishable under the aforesaid provisions of the Act, if the investigation has to be conducted, it has to be in terms of the Wildlife Crime Investigation Handbook.

Referring to the procedure stipulated for investigating the offences under the Act. It said

“After conduct of search and seizure if the wildlife offence is detected, then the Forest Officer has to record all the details in the Wildlife Offence Register in terms of prescribed format and prepare a Wildlife Offence Report. This is given a complete go-bye.”

The Court added that the Range Forest Officer had to register the FIR first and later file a complaint before the Magistrate on the same offence.

“It is thereafter, the complaint would be preferred before the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. This procedure is violated for it to become topsyturvy. What the Range Forest Officer would do is to register the FIR at the outset and later, file a complaint before the learned Magistrate both of which are on the same offence.”

The court then observed that the duty of the Magistrate is to conduct an inquiry under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. to find out whether at all the matter would require investigation by a criminal Court. There was no question of referring the matter under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. to decide whether Section 204 Cr.P.C. should be followed or otherwise. Sections 202 and 204 of the Cr.P.C. are completely violated in the case at hand.

Noting that on 08-05-2023 after the final report was placed before the learned Magistrate, the Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Section 190(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. for the offences under Section 51 of the Act and Sections 465 and 201 of the IPC.

The bench held,

“This is the second cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate.” It pointed out that the first cognizance taken by the magistrate was when the complaint was registered by the Range Forest Officer on 21-12-2022, invoking Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. for the afore-quoted offences, the learned Magistrate took cognizance and issued summons acting under Section 190(1)(a) of the Cr.P.C."

The Court added that the Magistrate could take cognizance under both the provisions i.e., Section 190(1)(a) or 190(1)(b)(c) of the Cr.P.C.

"One would be on the police report and the other would be on the product of the inquiry directed under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. Both deal with taking cognizance. Once having taken cognizance, it was clearly impermissible in law to have taken cognizance yet again on 08-05-2023 for the offence that had already been taken cognizance on 22-12-2022. Therefore, the procedure followed by the learned Magistrate is also topsy-turvy.”

The court then opined that the offences under the Act would fall under the manual which is a complete code by itself.

"The Police by registering Criminal Case No.2319 of 2023 have envisaged a situation of hybrid trial for the same offence before one forum i.e., the learned Magistrate. This is also impermissible in law as there is marked difference between the enquiry to be conducted under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. and the reference being made by the learned Magistrate for conduct of investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. The net result of all the aforesaid actions is multiple criminal proceedings being registered on the same offence which is clearly impermissible in law.”

Accordingly, it allowed the petitions.

Appearance: Senior Advocate H.S.Chandramouli for Advocate Prateek Chandramouli, Advocate Vidyashree K.SAdvocate Keerthana Nagaraj. Senior Advocate Sandesh Chouta for Advocate Leela P Devadiga for Petitioners.

Additional State Public Prosecutor, B.N. Jagadeesha for Respondents.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 400.

Case Title: Sampanna Mutalik & ANR AND State of Karnataka & ANR

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.5952 OF 2023 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION No.5741 OF 2023 CRIMINAL PETITION No.5788 OF 2023.

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment