IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 19.06.2017 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.V.MURALIDARAN CRL.O.P.Nos.27869 of 2012, 5399 and 7234 of 2011 and M.P.Nos.1/2012 and 1 and 1 of 2011 I.A.R.Moses .. Petitioner/ 3rd accused in Crl.OP.27869/2012 M.C.Somanna .. Petitioner/ 1st accused in Crl.OP.5399/2011 C.A.Bopaiah .. Petitioner/ 2nd accused in Crl.OP.7234/2011 Vs The State, Rep. by Range Forest Officer, Valparai Forest Range, Water Falls, Valparai-642 105, Coimbatore. .. Respondent in all OPs.
PRAYER: Petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records in C.C.No.51 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Valparai.
For Petitioners : Mr.M.Vijayan for M/s.King and Partridge For Respondent : Mr.P.Govindarajan Addl. Public Prosecutor COMMON ORDER The petitioners, who are Manager, Senior Manager and Deputy Manager of Tata Coffee Limited, Valparai Estate, have filed these petitions to call for the records in C.C.No.51 of 2010 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Valparai and quash the same.
2. I heard Mr.M.Vijayan for M/s.King and Patridge, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.P.Govindarajan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent and perused the entire materials available on record.
3. The case of the prosecution is that on 24.05.2009, the petitioners have stored fertilizers in a non-standard godown owned by Tata Coffee Limited situated in Village Survery No.10/7A within the jurisdiction of Valparai Forest Range and the wild elephants entered into the said Estate and ate fertilizers and pesticides and due to the same, two wild elephants died and the body of two wild elephants were found 40 metres away from the godown. Stating that due to eating of fertilizers and pesticides stored in the godown the wild elephants died, the petitioners are alleged to be liable for the death of two wild elephants. The respondent lodged a complaint before the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Valparai and the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Valparai has taken the case on file as C.C.No.51 of 2010 under Sections 39, 58 read with Section 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and issued summons for appearance of the petitioners.
4. The petitioners herein have filed the present Criminal Original Petitions under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.51 of 2010 stating that the allegations in the complaint do not constitute any offence and the continuation of proceedings shall be vexatious and will defeat the ends of justice. According to the petitioners, the information regarding the death of the wild elephants was brought to the notice of the authorities concerned by the employees of M/s.Tata Coffee Limited. The respondent without application of mind filed a complaint before the learned District Munsif- cum-Judicial Magistrate, Valparai on 6.12.2010 against the petitioners alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 39 and 58 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that even though the complaint does not disclose any offence under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Valparai has taken cognizance of the same in C.C.No.51 of 2010, which is clear abuse of process of Court. He would submit that even if the entire allegations are accepted to be true, the same do not reveal the commission of offence under the Wild Life (Protection) Act by the petitioners.
6. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that since the petitioners have stored fertilizers and pesticides in an unsafe godown and the wild elephants entered into the said godown and ate fertilizers and because of consumption of fertilizers the wild elephants died. Therefore, the petitioners were solely responsible for the death of the two elephants and hence, they are liable to be punished under the provisions of the Wild Life (Protection) Act. He would submit that only during trial the truth will come and at this stage, the petitioners cannot be discharged from the offences alleged against them.
7. According to the petitioners, they were officials of M/s.Tata Coffee Limited, Uralikkal Division, Valparai Estate. Middle of their Estate, M/s.Tata Coffee Limited constructed a godown for storing fertilizers and pesticides required for the plantation activities. According to the petitioners, the Estate has deputed two watchmen to ensure safe custody of the material stored in the godown, which is a permanent structure and has been in existence for many years and is always kept under lock and key.
8. The case of the petitioners is that on 24.5.2009 at about 10.00 P.M., a herd of elephants entered into the Estate and on seeing the arrival of wild elephants and fearing death, two watchmen fled the scene. On 25.5.2009 morning, the watchman and other workers found that the wild elephants ransacked the Estate and cardamom plants and also broke the doors of the godown. That apart, one elephant was found dead in Valparai Estate and another elephant was found dead in Uralikal Estate. Immediately, the said fact was reported to the Forest Officials, who after conducting post-mortem, removed the tusk from male elephant and two numbers of teeth from the dead female elephant. The said facts are not in dispute.
9. In the instant case, there is no specific allegation against the petitioners about the commission of offence under the provisions of the Wild Life (Protection) Act. The allegations set out in the complaint even if taken at their face value, do not constitute any offence.
10. The allegation of the respondent is that despite knowing that wild elephants will enter into the Estate, the petitioners have stored fertilizers and pesticides etc. in a non-standard godown and due to eating of fertilizers stored in the godown, two wild elephants died.
11. According to the petitioners, the said allegation of the respondent is unsustainable for the reason that statements recorded would go to show that the building was made of concrete and that the building did not have any windows and the door was made of wood. To show that the godown is non-standard godown, the respondent has not produced any piece of material. When such being the position, it is not known as to how the respondent arrived at a conclusion that the godown does not meet the required standards.
12. It is pertinent to note that in the complaint itself the respondent alleged that wild elephants broke open the godown door. Thus, it is clear that pesticides and fertilizers were kept in a safe place. It is not the case of the prosecution that the building was demolished by the wild elephants and died on its own. Moreover, there is no rule, regulation and/or order under the Wild Life (Protection) Act prescribing conditions/specifications for construction of godown in the Estate.
13. If the wild elephants enter into the Estate, cause damage and died due to its own activity, it is not justiciable to punish the employee of the Estate like the petitioners who were no way connected with the commission of offence alleged by the respondent. Moreover, it is not possible for the employee of the Estate to prevent the wild elephants from entering into the Estate and/or godown. Therefore, the respondent without application of mind lodged the complaint before the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Valparai. Looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Valparai ought not to have taken cognizance of the complaint in C.C.No.51 of 2010 and issued summons to the petitioners. Moreover, no other person witnessed the elephants eating fertilizers and pesticides etc.
14. It is settled that summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. Testing the present complaint on the above principle, this Court is of the view that the proceedings on the complaint of the respondent are unsustainable in law.
15. In a catena of decisions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that High Court while exercising its inherent jurisdiction should not interfere with a genuine complaint, but it should certainly not hesitate to intervene in appropriate cases. In this regard, the principle is as follows - “One of the paramount duties of the superior courts is to see that a person who is apparently innocent is not subjected to prosecution and humiliation on the basis of a false and wholly untenable complaint.”
16. In the instant case, keeping fertilizers such as Potash and other pesticides required for plantation that too in a godown is not an offence.
17. Section 39 of the Wild Life (Protection Act provides that wild animals etc. will be the Government property even if it is dead. In the case on hand, the death of wild elephants was reported by the employees of M/s.Tata Coffee Limited within the prescribed period of 48 hours. The Section 58 of the Act provides that if the offence is committed by the company, every person, who at the time of offence was committed was in-charge of, and was responsible to the company shall be deemed to have committed the offence. Section 51 provides punishment for contravention of the provisions of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 any rule or order made thereunder. It is apposite to note that in the complaint except for a reference to the above provisions, there is no imputation made against the petitioners. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that if the above complaint is allowed to be proceeded against the petitioners, the same will be nothing but wastage of precious Court time, besides will be an abuse of process of law and Court.
18. In the result, these Criminal Original Petitions are allowed and the complaint in C.C.No.51 of 2010 pending on the file of the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Valparai is hereby quashed as far as the petitioners are concerned. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
19.06.2017 Note:Issue order copy on 21.02.2019 vs Index : Yes To The District Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Valparai.
M.V.MURALIDARAN, J.
vs CRL.OP.Nos.27869 of 2012; 5399 and 7234 of 2011 19.06.2017