(BY SRI. SHIVARAJ.N.ARALI, ADVOCATE) v. MAJOR

(BY SRI. SHIVARAJ.N.ARALI, ADVOCATE) …PETITIONER Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560001 REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE LOKAYUKTHA, MULTISTORIED BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560001. - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:35201 CRL.P No. 9620 of 2025 HC-KAR

INSPECTOR OF POLICE LOKAYUKTHA MADIKERI - 571218.

V.T.MADAN, SON OF V.T. THIMMAIAH ARJI VILLAGE - 571218 VIRAJPET TALUK MAJOR. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SRINIVAS KUMAR, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. VENKATESH.S.ARBATTI, ADV. FOR R2 & R3) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 (FILED U/S.528 BNSS) CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE-A THE CHARGE SHEET DATED 12.06.2017 IN CR.NO.01/2013 FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT MADIKERI LOAKHUKTHA P.S. MADIKERI FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 13(1)(d) (ii)(iii) R/W 13(2) P.C ACT 1988 R/W SEC.27,32,51 OF WILD LIFE PROTECTION ACT 1972 R/W 109 OF IPC 1860 AS AGAINST THE PETITIONER / 3RD ACCSUED AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:35201 CRL.P No. 9620 of 2025 HC-KAR ORAL ORDER The petitioner has challenged the charge sheet filed against him by respondent No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(d)(ii)(iii) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under Sections 27, 32 and 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, under Section 109 of IPC. He has also sought for quashing the order dated

04.07.2017 passed by II Additional Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu, Madikeri, taking cognizance and registering Special Case No.5001/2017.

2. It appears that the petitioner was an Excise Inspector, who on receipt of an application for transfer of CL-2 license, visited the proposed location and recommended the transfer of license to the proposed location and that the proposed location did not lie within the prohibited zone under the provisions of the Karnataka Excise Licences (General Conditions) Rules, 1967 (for 'Rules 1967'). It appears that a complaint was lodged by respondent No.4 alleging that CL-2 license was transferred to a place which fell within the limits of a wildlife reserved area. Based upon this, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:35201 CRL.P No. 9620 of 2025 HC-KAR respondent No.1 investigated the offences and filed a charge sheet. Insofar as this petitioner is concerned, it was alleged that the petitioner had visited the proposed location and recommended for transfer and therefore had committed the offences mentioned supra.

3. It appears that the proposed location was a building, which belonged to the Panchayath and the Panchayath had given no objection for the transfer of CL-2 license and based upon that, the petitioner had visited the proposed location and after finding that the same did not violate any of the provisions of the Rules 1967, had recommended transfer. Therefore, the offences alleged against the petitioner were not made out as the recommendation made by the petitioner was in the usual course of his official duties. This Court in similar circumstances had quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against accused Nos.4 and 5, who too were involved in the transfer of the license to the proposed location.