IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.265 OF 2016 BETWEEN:
SRI. BETTASWAMY SON OF BORAIAH RESIDING AT NO.5 TYAGARAJANAGAR MAIN ROAD VIDYAPEETA CIRCLE BENGALURU – 560 050.
(BY SRI. BIPIN HEGDE, ADVOCATE) …PETITIONER AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH BASAVANAGUDI POLICE REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR BENGALURU – 560 001.
...RESPONDENT (BY SRI.VIJAYA KUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL. SPP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO. 14874 OF 2010 WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF 2nd ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.
2. Petitioner has sought to quash the proceedings initiated against him in CC No.14874/2010 for the alleged violation of Sections 49(B) and (C) and section 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (For short, the ‘Act’).
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised two-fold contentions. Firstly, the seized shells do not fall under Schedule-4 appended to the Act, as such, the prosecution against the petitioner is illegal and unjustified. Secondly, the courts are debarred from taking cognizance of the offences under the provisions of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 except on the complaint filed by the Authorised Officers as specified in Section 55 thereof.
4. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor submits that by virtue of the Notification dated 16.10.1973, the Police Sub-Inspector–CID (Forest Cell) is an Authorised Officer under section 55 of the Act and therefore there is no illegality in the initiation of the proceedings against the petitioner.
5. Section 55 of the Act reads as follows:
“55. Cognizance of offences - No court shall take cognizance of any offence against this Act except on the complaint of any person other than-
(a) the Director of Wild Life Preservation or any other officer authorised in this behalf by the Central Government; or 2[(aa) the Member-Secretary, Central Zoo Authority in matters relating to violation of the provisions of Chapter IVA; or] 3[(ab) Member-Secretary, Tiger Conservation Authority; or (ac) Director of the concerned tiger reserve; or] (b) the Chief Wild Life Warden, or any other officer authorised in this behalf by the State Government [subject to such conditions as may be specified by that Government] ; or 2 [(bb) the officer-in-charge of the zoo in respect of violation of provisions of section 38J; or] (c) any person who has given notice of not less than sixty days, in the manner prescribed, of the alleged offence and of his intention to make a complaint to the Central Government or the State Government or the officer authorised as aforesaid.] 5. The said section specifically prohibits the court from taking cognizance of any offence under the Act except upon the complaint made by the persons specified in the said section. Undisputedly, in the instant case, the prosecution is initiated by lodging a report under section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code and not by way of complaint as defined under section 2(d) of the Act/under Section 200 CRPC. Therefore, solely on this ground alone, the proceedings initiated against the petitioner, being opposed to the provisions of Section 55 of the Act, are liable to be quashed.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The proceedings in CC No.14874/2010 pending on the file of the II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, are quashed only in so far as the petitioner is concerned. Liberty is reserved to the competent officers specified in Section 55 of the Act to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of the Act, as per law.
Sd/- JUDGE nv