Bombay High Court
State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Range ... vs Mansingh Bicchu Banot And Others on 15 November, 2017
Bench: R. B. Deo
1 apeal272.16
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 272 OF 2016
State of Maharashtra,
through Range Forest Officer,
Warora, District Chandrapur. .... APPELLANT
VERSUS
1) Mansingh Bicchu Banot,
Aged Major, Occ. - Private,
R/o Tanda, Tahsil - Bhadrawati,
District Chandrapur.
2) Tejrao Ramu Bhukya (Absent), - (Appeal abated as
Aged Major, Occ. - Private, per order dt. 29-3-17)
R/o Tanda, Tahsil - Bhadrawati,
District Chandrapur.
3) Chiman Chandu Jadhav (absent),
Aged Major, Occ. - Private,
R/o Tanda, Tahsil - Bhadrawati,
District Chandrapur. .... RESPONDENTS
______________________________________________________________
Shri A.S. Palshikar, Addl.P.P. for the appellant,
None for the respondents.
______________________________________________________________
CORAM : ROHIT B. DEO, J.
DATED : 15
NOVEMBER, 2017.
th
ORAL JUDGMENT :
Challenge is to the judgment and order dated 02-1-2016 in
2 apeal272.16
Regular Criminal Case 49/2002 delivered by the learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Bhadrawati, by and under which respondent 1
Mansingh Banot is acquitted of offence punishable under Section 51 of
the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the
"Act") and accused Tejrao Bhukya and accused Chiman Jadhav are
discharged.
2. Heard Shri A.S. Palshikar, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the appellant.
3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri
A.S. Palshikar states that accused Tejrao Bhukya is dead. The appeal
stands abated against accused Tejrao Bhukya.
4. The genesis of the prosecution lies in a complaint
instituted by Range Forest Officer, Warora, the gist of which was that
the accused killed one blue bull (fuyxk;) with the help of electric
current. Electric wire was planted at various spots is the assertion in
the complaint.
5. Accused 2 and 3 remained absent/could not be traced and
3 apeal272.16
vide order below Exhibit 33 the learned Magistrate separated the trial
of accused 1 from accused 2 and 3.
6. The learned Magistrate framed charge vide Exhibit 46.
The sole accused abjured guilt and claimed to be tried. The defence of
the accused, as is discernible from the statement recorded under
Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code is of false implication.
7. The learned Magistrate has recorded a finding that the
complaint is not competently filed. Section 55 of the Act, to which the
learned Magistrate has made a reference, reads thus :
"55. Cognizance of offences -- No court shall take cognizance
of any offence against this Act 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) 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
authorised in this behalf by the State 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
4 apeal272.16
or the State Government or the officer authorised as
aforesaid."
8. The learned Magistrate has recorded a finding that there is
no compliance with Section 55(c) and axiomatically the complaint
instituted by the Range Forest Officer is incompetent in law.
9. The learned Magistrate has further noted that even
otherwise the complainant did not step into the witness box, P.W.3
Haribhau refused/failed to identify the accused and rather stated that
he was not aware of any incident as is asserted in the complaint.
10. The panch witnesses have not taken the case of the
prosecution any further. Illustratively, Sumitra (P.W.5) admits that she
has signed on the panchanama at the instance of forester Upase.
11. The learned Magistrate has also noted non-compliance
with Section 50(8) of the Act and the relevant discussion is found in
paragraphs 14 and 15 of the judgment impugned.
12. On a holistic appreciation of the material on record and
5 apeal272.16
the statutory provisions, the learned Magistrate has recorded that no
offence is made out against the accused Mansingh Banot. I do not see
any perversity in the judgment of acquittal.
13. The appeal is sans merit as regard the acquittal of accused
1 Mansingh Banot is concerned and is dismissed.
14. In so far as accused 2 Tejrao Bhukya and accused 3
Chiman Jadhav whose trial came to be separated, the learned
Magistrate has recorded that they are discharged. It is doubtful
whether accused 2 and accused 3 could have been discharged. Be that
as it may, the complainant is at liberty to take recourse to said remedy
as is available, if the complainant so deems fit, to prosecute accused 3
as and when he is apprehended.
The appeal is disposed in the above terms.
JUDGE
adgokar
