Forest Act offences may be investigated only by Forest Officers of at least Range Forest Officer rank.

The petitioner, arrayed as accused No. 1, sought to quash proceedings in C.C. No. 410/2021 arising from a police case alleging offences under Sections 379 read with 34 of the IPC, Section 104(A) of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963, and Rule 165 of the Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969.

The case originated in a suo motu complaint alleging that the petitioner and others had cut and stored Indian rosewood on property belonging to the petitioner’s family.

The Police Sub-Inspector registered the case, investigated it, and filed a charge sheet; the Magistrate took cognizance.

The petitioner challenged the proceedings under Section 482 CrPC, contending, among other things, that the investigation contravened Section 62-A of the Act.

1. Whether a Police Sub-Inspector could investigate offences under the Karnataka Forest Act and Rules, given Section 62-A’s provision concerning investigation by a Forest Officer not below the rank of Range Forest Officer.

2. Whether the allegation of theft under Section 379 IPC could be sustained against the petitioner where the complainant stated that the property on which the trees were cut belonged to the petitioner’s family.

Section 62-A of the Karnataka Forest Act empowers a Forest Officer not below the rank of Range Forest Officer, within the specified area, to exercise the powers of an officer in charge of a police station in relation to offences under the Act; for Section 156 CrPC, the relevant area is deemed to be a police station and the Forest Officer is deemed its officer in charge.

The Court construed this provision as barring registration and investigation of such offences by an officer below the prescribed rank.

The Court also considered the allegation under Section 379 IPC and the complainant’s statement that the property belonged to the petitioner’s family.

It relied on a coordinate Bench decision in Crl.P. No. 13900/2023, which had quashed proceedings in a similar circumstance involving contravention of Section 62-A.

The Court noted that the petitioner’s property, or property belonging to his family, was the site of the alleged tree-cutting and that the case had been initiated and investigated by a Police Sub-Inspector.

It held that the theft allegation was not attracted against the petitioner in light of the complainant’s statement about the family’s ownership of the property.

Separately, because the investigation and charge sheet were handled by an officer other than a Forest Officer of the rank prescribed under Section 62-A, the Court found the proceedings procedurally unsustainable.

The fact that the charge sheet had been filed and the trial had commenced did not overcome that statutory bar.