LAWS(KAR)-2012-8-532

P.M. ANANTHA NARAYAN, S/O LATE SRI P. MANIKYA PRABHU Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, BANNERAGHATTA NATIONAL PARK, BANGALORE URBAN FOREST DIVISION, BANGALORE URBAN DIST., BANGALORE

Decided On August 08, 2012
P.M. Anantha Narayan, S/O Late Sri P. Manikya Prabhu Appellant
V/S
State Of Karnataka By The Deputy Conservator Of Forests, Banneraghatta National Park, Bangalore Urban Forest Division, Bangalore Urban Dist., Bangalore Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the petitioners seek setting aside the order of the Traffic Court, Bangalore, dated 25.6.2009 ordering the case to be registered against the petitioners in respect of an offence under Section 51 of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 for violation of the provisions of Sections 39(3)(a) and 40 of the said Act. The case of the prosecution in short is that, in the restaurant called Nyx Elite Bar and Restaurant, Residency Road, Bangalore, on credible information, it was found that a dead cobra was kept in a bottle of liquor and that liquor was being served to the customers who visited the bar and restaurant. The officials of the Forest Department went to the spot and seized the bottle containing the dead cobra. A case was registered against the first petitioner, who is said to be the owner, and the second petitioner, who is the Manager of the said restaurant.

(2.) LEARNED senior counsel Sri C.V.Nagesh for the petitioners submitted that the first petitioner, being the owner of the restaurant, was totally unaware of the fact of the dead cobra being found in a liquor bottle and secondly, even as per the statement recorded by the police during investigation, it is revealed that the dead cobra was given as a gift to the second petitioner by one of his friends. He, therefore, submitted that the first petitioner cannot be asked to under the prosecution when he is totally unaware of the second petitioner having received the dead cobra as a gift from someone else.

(3.) HAVING thus heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for the respondent -State and the Apex Court in the aforementioned decision viz., Maharashtra State Electricity Co. Ltd. Vs. Datar Switchgear Ltd., reported in 2010 AIR SCW 6151, having observed at paragraph -29 that wherever by a legal fiction, the principle of vicarious liability is attracted and a person who is otherwise not personally involved in the commission of an offence is made liable for the same, it has to be specifically provided in the statute concerned, in the instant case, applying the aforesaid principle of law, there being no specific provision in the Wild Life Protection Act fixing vicarious liability, the first petitioner, being the owner of the restaurant, therefore, cannot be proceeded with though the same cannot be said about the second petitioner in the light of the statement given by the second petitioner during investigation. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition is allowed in part and the proceedings against the first petitioner pending in C.C.No. 1141/2009 stands quashed. The trial court to proceed with the matter against the second petitioner in accordance with law.