IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3188 OF 2014 BETWEEN:
SRI HAMEED B S/O AHMED AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT ADARSH NAGAR NEAR VENKATARAMANA TEMPLE LALA VILLAGE BELTHANGADY TALUK-574 214.
(By Sri:VIKAS M. FOR ARUNA SHYAM M,ADV., ) ... PETITIONER AND:-
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH MANGALORE EAST POLICE STATION, KADRI MANGALORE DAKSHINA KANNADA REP BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560 001. ... RESPONDENT (By Sri:I.S. PRAMOD CHANDRA, SPP-II ) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S. 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.1384/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, PUTTUR IN CR.NO.68/2007 REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R The petitioner is accused of committing offences punishable under sections 2, 9, 39, 40(2), 49, 51 r/w Sl.No Part –I, Sl.No.17 of Wild Life Act, 1972 r/w 34 Indian Penal Code.
2. The petitioner has sought to quash the said proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned SPP-II appearing for the respondent.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the out-set would submit that in the instant case, FIR was filed by the Police Inspector, District Crimes Intelligence Wing. Investigation was conducted by the Circle Inspector, Puttur Rural Circle, Puttur. Neither the Officer who registered the case nor the officer who conducted the investigation were competent to investigate into the alleged offences. The learned Magistrate also had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the alleged offences in view of the bar contained under Section 55 of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972. Hence, the entire proceedings initiated against the petitioner being void and without authority of law are liable to be quashed.
4. In support of his submission, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Crl.P.No.4968/2014 dated 07.11.2014.(Sri.Thimme Gowda and another Vs. State of Karnataka) 5. Learned SPP-II appearing for the respondent does not dispute the fact that investigation in the instant case was conducted by local police and not by the authorized officer as required under the provisions of Wild Life Protection Act.
6. Section 55 of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 debars the Court from taking cognizance of any offences except on the complaint of any person other than:-
(a) the Director of Wildlife Preservation or any other officer authorised in this behalf by the Central Government; or [(aa) the Member-Secretary, Central Zoo Authority in matters relating to violation of the provisions of Chapter IVA; or] [(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 authorized in this behalf by the State Government [subject to such conditions as may be specified by that Government]; or [(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 officer authorised as aforesaid.] 7. In the instant case, undisputedly, no complaint has been lodged by the officers specified in Section 55 of Wild Life Protection Act, 1972. On the other hand, the petitioner/accused was caught red handed while in possession of two tiger skins and one skin of dead cheetah on 02.11.2007 at 7.30 p.m., The accused was arrested and produced before the learned Magistrate on the next day and FIR was registered against him for the above offences only on 03.11.2007. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in STATE OF BIHAR vs. MURAD ALI KHAN, (1988) 4 SCC 655 has held that Section 55 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act is a bar for taking cognizance and it specifies who is the authorized person to file a complaint in respect of the offence under the said Act.
Since the proceedings initiated against the petitioner are in violation of the provision of Section 55 of Wild Life Protection Act, 1972, the proceedings are liable to be quashed.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The proceedings registered against the petitioner in C.C.No.1384/2008 pending on the file of Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Puttur are hereby quashed.
Liberty is reserved to the Authorised Officer under the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law.
Sd/- JUDGE *mn/-