Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sabeeh Ullah Siddiqui vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 March, 2025
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:13223
1 CRR-1802-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 17th OF MARCH, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 1802 of 2024
SABEEH ULLAH SIDDIQUI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Appearance:
Shri Shreyash Pandit - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Santosh Yadav - Government Advocate for respondent/State.
ORDER
This revision has been filed by the petitioner against the order
impugned order dated 22.02.2024 whereby framing of charge has been
imposed by the petitioner.
2. It is contended by the counsel in the present case, the petitioner has
been prosecuted on the strength of First Information Report which is
contained in Annexure-A/1 which has been lodged by local police authority.
Offence has been registered under Sections 9, 39 and 51 of Wild Protection
Act, 1972. It is contended by the counsel that the present case, there is no
complaint by any of the authorities which are mentioned in Section 55 of
Wild Protection Act, therefore, even the FIR itself could not have been
registered. It is contended by the counsel that the Court while framing charge
is required to appreciate that no cognizance could have been taken in
absence of a complaint by the authorities which are mentioned in Section 55
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:13223
2 CRR-1802-2024
of Wild Protection Act.
3. The counsel in support of contention place reliance on the judgment
passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur passed in CRMP
No.2167 of 2023 in the case of Vijay Jain Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and also
the judgment passed by High Court of Uttarakhand in the case of Pancham
Das Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another reported in 2014 SCC online Utt
358. It is contended by the counsel that the application under Section 227 of
Cr.P.C has been moved before the concerned Court but fairly submits that
aforesaid ground regarding Section 55 of Wild Protection Act, 1972 was not
taken. However, the counsel contended that as the question of law is
involved, therefore, the order of framing of charge is assailed here. As the
trial Court has not even advert to the aforesaid respect.
4. The prayer is opposed by learned Government Advocate and it is
contended that taking into consideration the allegation against the present
petitioner wherein from the motor vehicle, a gun, a live cartridge and dead
wildlife were seized, aforesaid offences has been registered. It is also
contended that counsel that the said allegations have been taken note of by
the concerned trial Court and accordingly the charge has been rightly framed.
5. Having considered the submissions and on perusal of the record
reflect that the trial Court has rejected the application filed by the petitioner
under Section 227 and vide order dated 22.02.2024 has framed the charge
against the petitioner under Sections 9, 39 and 51 of Wild Protection Act,
1972.
6. Perusal of the record reflect that in the present case, the report
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:13223
3 CRR-1802-2024
against the present petitioner was lodged by police station for the offence
punishable under Section 9, 39 and 51 of Wild Protection Act, 1972. A
perusal of the First Information Report reflect that the matter was not
reported to the police by any of the authority which are mentioned under
Section 55 of Wild Protection Act, 1972. Section 55 of Wild Protection Act,
1972 provides as under:-
"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
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
4[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.]"
7. A perusal of the aforesaid Section reflects that cognizance of a
complaint can only be taken if the complaint is moved by the authorities
which are detailed in Section 55 of Wild Protection Act, 1972. This aspect
has been taken a note of by the High Court of Uttarakhand as well as the
High of Chhattisgarh. As apparently there is no complaint by any of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:13223
4 CRR-1802-2024
authorities which are mentioned in Section 55 of Wild Protection Act, 1972,
accordingly, this Court is of the view that the order framing of charge
deserves to be set aside. Resultantly, the revision stands allowed. Impugned
order dated 22.02.2024 stands quashed. The applicant stands discharged.
Bail bond, if any, also stands discharged.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI)
JUDGE
Prar
