Observing orally that the Forest Department’s action of searching the house of actor-MP Jaggesh in the tiger claw pendent case appears to be for publicity, the High Court of Karnataka on Monday stayed all further proceedings initiated against him based on the search warrant issued by an Assistant Conservator of Forests.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna passed the interim order on a petition filed by Mr. Jaggesh questioning the legality of the search conducted on his premises on October 25.
“Prima facie, the action taken appears to be contrary to law, unless it is justified by the State by its objections, or otherwise,” the court observed in its order while adjourning further hearing till November 29. The question of legality of the search conducted after issuing of notice required consideration, the court said.
It noted that the allegation of Mr. Jaggesh was that “in the search of a tiger claw, the State authorities have unleashed the claws of power under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1971 in an illegal manner.”
The Deputy Conservator of Forests, Forest Mobile Squad, the court noted, had issued a notice on October 25, asking Mr. Jaggesh to produce the tiger claw for inspection with a warning that action under the 1972 Act would be initiated if he failed to produce the said animal part.
However, barely within 60 minutes after issuing notice, a team of officials of the department had searched his premises based on a search warrant issued by the Assistant Conservator of Forests, Forest Mobile Squad, the court pointed out.
The court orally observed that the search operation appeared to be conducted for publicity as search was conducted within an hour after serving him with the notice and without even giving any time for the petitioner to produce the tiger claw before the DCF in response to the notice.
“A perusal of the search warrant would not indicate any semblance of reasons that the officer had to believe for conducting a search, notwithstanding a notice issued for inspection of the suspected possession just 60 minutes ago,” the court observed..
When Additional State Public Prosecutor claimed that search was conducted as the department had got information that the tiger claws could either be destroyed or replaced, the court pointed put that no such suspicion was reflected in the search warrant. Also, the court wondered from where the officials got such an information within an hour after serving the notice to him.
