The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that conviction under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 can only sustain if there is a complaint lodged by an authorized Officers.
The single-judge bench of Justice Mohammad Nawaz in an appeal filed against the conviction under said Act noted that no Court can take cognizance of any offence under the Wild Life Act, except on the complaint of an officer.
Brief Facts of the Case
In the Antharasanthe Wild Life Range, the watcher in the forest department was informed by some boy about the death of an elephant in the land belonging to Sundar das. The elephant had died due to an electric shock because of a solar fence put up around the land which was unauthorizedly connected to a pump house. This information was passed to the range forest officer. The range forest on receiving the information lodged a complaint. Later the doctor who conducted the post mortem report stated that the elephant died due to electrocution and electricity was being supplied during the date of the incident as it was confirmed by the Junior Engineer.
In view of the evidence of the above prosecution witnesses, the prosecution has been able to establish that the land situated at K.R.Pura village belonging to a local resident was taken on lease by the accused persons who were farmers and were cultivating the said land, the farmers were the ones who installed the solar fence and pump around the premises as this was all stated by the owner of the land.
The trial court held that the farmer was guilty for the death of the elephant and was convicted for offences punishable under Section 138(1)(a) of the Electricity Act 2003, Section 429 of IPC and Section 51 of the Wild Life Protection Act.
Submissions of Counsels
After the farmer was convicted, through an appeal the matter was taken to the high court and the counsel of the farmer stated that the trial court was not proper in convicting the farmer under the provisions of the wild life protection act as there was no complaint filed by an authorized officer and therefore cognizance for the offence under the act could not have been taken.
The Counsel of the farmer placed reliance on an unreported judgment of the same court, and contended that in similar circumstances, the Court held that Section 9 r/w Section 51 of the Wild Life Protection Act is not attracted. It was stated in the case that “Another aspect is that, under Section 55 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, no Court shall take cognizance of any offence under the said Act, except on the complaint of any person other than the officers mentioned therein. Admittedly in the instant case, cognizance is taken on the basis of chargesheet filed by the police and not on a complaint, which is defined under Section 2(1)(d) of Cr.P.C. Even on the said ground the conviction of the appellant under the provisions of the Wild Life (Protection ) Act cannot be sustained.”
High Court's Observation
It was held by the court that complaint was lodged by the range forest officer before the police and after the completion of the investigation charge-sheet was filed and then on the basis of the charge-sheet, the learned Magistrate took cognizance and therefore the cognizance was not on a complaint, which is defined under Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C. Hence, the conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 9 r/w Section 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 is not sustainable in law, it ruled.
The HC observed that, "Under Section 55 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, no Court shall take cognizance of any offence under the said Act, except on the complaint of any person other than the officers mentioned therein. Admittedly in the instant case, cognizance is taken on the basis of chargesheet filed by the police and not on a complaint, which is defined under Section 2(1)(d) of Cr.P.C. Even on the said ground the conviction of the appellant under the provisions of the Wild Life (Protection) Act cannot be sustained.”
The Court convicted the accused for the offence under Section 138(1)(a) of the Electricity Act 2003 and Section 429 of IPC, The court also stated that each of the accused has to pay a fine of 10,000/- and if the accused fails to do so then they have to go through rigorous punishment for a period of 6 months.
Case Title: Srinivasa and Anr v. State by Beechanalli Police Station
Case Details: CRIMINAL APPEAL No.716 OF 2011
Coram: Justice Mohammad Nawaz
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com:
Share this Document :Picture Source :
