Case no. -56/2016
THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGLORE
BENCH – Hon’ble Mr. Aravind Kumar J.
DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 23 March 2018
RELEVANT ACTS/SECTIONS:
Section 9 of Wildlife Protection Act,1972 (Prohibition of hunting)
Section 27 of Wildlife Protection Act,1972 (Restriction on the entry in the sanctuary)
Section 31 of Wildlife Protection Act,1972 (Prohibition of entry into the sanctuary with a weapon)
Section 51 of Wildlife Protection Act,1972 (Penalties)
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (Punishment of murdered)
Section 323 of Indian Penal Code (Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt)
Section 324 of Indian Penal Code (Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means)
Section 506(2) of Indian Penal Code (Punishment for criminal intimidation)
Section 120(B) of Indian Penal Code (Punishment of criminal conspiracy)
Section 25(1B) (a) of Arms Act,1959 (Acquires, has in his possession or carries any firearms)
BACKSTORY
This petition was filed under section 397 R/W 401 Cr.P.C and appeal to discharge the alleged offences P/U/S 9,27,31 R/W 51 of wildlife Protection Act which was passed by the HON’BLE court of II additional district and sessions judge, Kodagu-Madikeri, case no. 56/2016, order date 10/11/2017.
Petitioner was an accused of the punishable offences under section 302, 323, 324, 506 (2) & 120(B) IPC read with Sections 9, 27, 31 r/w Section 51 of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 and Section 25(1B) (a) of Arms Act, 1959 the order dated 10.11.2017.
Sri Abdul Latif was deceased, his brother reported the case about the murder of his brother. He said that he and his brother (deceased) had been gone to Brahmagiri Wild Life Range Forest on 16/11/2012 for poaching animals. There was some dispute happened between accused and deceased and the deceased Abdul Latif was murdered.
Mr. Bharath Kumar was a petitioner advocate wanted to draw the attention of the Court to the prayer made in the petition which is to the effect that petitioner should be discharged for the offences punishable under Sections 9, 27, 31 read with Section 51 of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 in S.C.NO.56/2016. He also said that these sections need to report separately as it not considered as the same case because a complaint was not in conformity with Section 55 of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972. But the court said that there would be no need or necessity for the separate complaint being filed under Section 55 of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972.
JUDGEMENT
The petition was dismissed by the court because he didn’t consider any disfigurement in the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge who refuses the discharge appeal. Hence, the petition for judicial review is rejected and no other changes were done in previous judgement.