Sri S. Bylaiah vs State

K. Bhakthavatsala, J.—The petitioner/accused in C C No. 1900/2007 on the file of JMFC at Anekal, for the offences punishable u/s 9, 39, 40, 44, 49 (b) & (c), 50, 51, and Schedule-II Para-I (A) of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 (in short, ''the Act'') is before this Court, praying for quashing the proceedings.

In the instant case, the Sub-Inspector of Forest Cell informed the Bannerghatta Police Station stating that the petitioner/accused is wrongfully confining Kangaroo Monkeys. On the basis of the information, the B annerghatta Police registered a case and investigated the same and laid charge sheet against the accused for the offences mentioned above.

The Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that as per Section 55 of the Act, no Court shall take cognizance of any offence under the Act except on the complaint lodged by the person mentioned in Section 55 of the Act.

The learned Government Pleader submits that the complainant was not competent to file complaint. It is useful to refer to Section 55 of the Act, which reads as under:

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

(aa) Member-Secretary, Central Zoo Authority in matters relating to violation of the provisions of Chapter IV-A; 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 authorised 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 State Government or the officer authorised as aforeside.

It is pertinent to mention that the Government of Karnataka in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 55 of the Act have issued a notification bearing No. AFD 104 FWL 73 dated 16.10.1973, authorising the following persons to take note of forest offences under the Act and file complaints in the court of law:

(i) all the Forest Officers of and above the rank of a forester,

(ii) all the Officers of and above the rank of a Sub-Inspector of Police, and

(iii) all the Revenue Officers of and above the rank of a Revenue Inspector.

From the above it is crystal clear that the complainant, in the instant case, is not the authorised person u/s 55 of the Act. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for quashing the proceedings. In the result, the Petition is allowed and the proceedings in C C No. 1900/2007 on the file of J M F C at Anekal, for the offences under Sections 9, 39, 40, 44, 49 (b) & (c), 50, 51, and Schedule-II Para-I & (A) of Wild Life Protection Act, 1972, is quashed.