Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
25 February 2016
from the forest area. This aspect of the matter has been taken into consideration by the trial
Court while dropping the proceedings.
5. Though the RFO has filed a complaint, in terms of Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C., he is the Station
House Officer of a Police Station as per Section 62-A of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963. Infact,
all the Range Forest Offices in the State of Karnataka are deemed to be the Police Stations as
per the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Range Forest Officers are of such
Ranges would be the Police Officers. This legal fiction is found in Section 62-A of the Karnataka
Forest Act.
Therefore, the complaint is not really one under Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C. Infact, the learned
Judge has considered all the aspects in detail and has held that no useful purpose would be
served if criminal proceedings are considered. He is justified in invoking Section 258 of Cr.P.C.,
since the case on hand is virtually a police case under Section 62-A of the Karnataka Forest
Act though initiated in the form of a complaint by an Officer other than a Police Officer. Office
of RFO is a Police Station in terms of Section 2(s) of Cr.P.C., and the proceedings conducted by
the RFO is 'Investigation' in terms of Section 2(h) of Cr.P.C. In this view of the matter,
dropping of the proceedings under Section 258 of Cr.P.C., is perfectly justified. No good
grounds are made out to admit the present petition. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
Petition dismissed
2015 Thomson Reuters South Asia Private Limited
This database contains editorial enhancements that are not a part of the original material. The database may also have mistakes or omissions. Users are requested to verify the contents with the
relevant original text(s) such as, the certified copy of the judgment, Government Gazettes, etc. Thomson Reuters bears no liability whatsoever for the adequacy, accuracy, satisfactory quality or
suitability of the content.