Madras High Court
Muthupandi vs The Forest Ranger Officer on 14 December, 2021
Crl.O.P(MD)No.19802 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 14.12.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
Crl.O.P(MD)No.19802 of 2021
and
Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos.11128 and 11132 of 2021
1.Muthupandi
2.Muthuramalingam
3.Paramaguru
4.Velusamy
5.Chandran ... Petitioners
Vs.
The Forest Ranger Officer,
Sapttur Forest Range,
Sapttur,
Virudhunagar District.
(W.L.O.R.No.1 of 2020) ... Respondent
Prayer: This Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C., to call for the records pertaining to the complaint in C.C.No.47
of 2020 on the file of the District Munsif Court Cum Judicial Magistrate
Court, Peraiyur and quash the same as illegal as against the petitioners.
For Petitioners : Mr.T.Vadivelan
For Respondent : Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar,
Addl. Public Prosecutor.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
Crl.O.P(MD)No.19802 of 2021
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent.
2.The petitioners are facing trial in C.C.No.47 of 2020 on the file
of Judicial Magistrate, Peraiyur for various offences under Wild Life
(Protection) Act, 1972. The petitioners were working as temporary staff
in the forest department. In Sapttur forest range, an elephant was found
dead and the petitioners herein on the instructions of the forest ranger
had burnt the carcass. According to the prosecution, when a protected
wild animal is found to be dead, postmortem will have to be performed
by the veterinary doctor and only after getting suitable instructions from
District Forest Officer, the carcass can be disposed of. In this case, the
accused had on their own disposed of the carcass by burning it by using
petrol. As a result, the cause of the elephant's death could not be
ascertained. It is for this reason, the impugned prosecution has been
launched.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MD)No.19802 of 2021
3.The learned counsel for the petitioners states that the first
accused/N.Srinivasan filed Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13237 of 2020 and interim
stay has been granted on 04.12.2020. A copy of the interim order has
been enclosed at page No.59 of the typed set of papers.
4.It is well settled that an interim order is not having any binding
effect as such. It is further seen that the said interim order is
non-speaking. Therefore, it is open to this Court to give a disposal to
this case on merits.
5.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would point out that
the petitioners have not disputed their act. Their act on the face of it
attracts the provisions of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. It is true that
the petitioners have not acted on their own but only on the instructions of
the first accused. This may be a mitigating circumstance in their favour.
But this has to be pleaded only before the trial Court. The contentions
putforth in the memorandum of grounds are absolutely insufficient to
invoke the inherent powers of this Court to quash the impugned
prosecution. I do not find any ground to interfere. This criminal original
petition stands dismissed. However, taking into account the overall
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MD)No.19802 of 2021
facts and circumstances, the personal appearance of the petitioners
before the Court below is dispensed with. However, the Court below
will insist on the personal appearance of the petitioners only on three
occasions namely, to answer the charge, for examination under Section
313 of CrPC and at the time of pronouncing Judgment. On all other
occasions, the petitioners need not appear before the Court below.
However, on those occasions, the petitioners will have to be represented
by their counsel. If the petitioners' counsel is also absent, the benefit of
dispensing with the personal appearance of the petitioners will stand
automatically vacated. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions
are closed.
14.12.2021
Index :Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
ias
Note : In view of the present lock down owing to
COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be
utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the
copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy,
shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant
concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MD)No.19802 of 2021
To:
1.The District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate,
Peraiyur.
2.The Forest Ranger Officer,
Sapttur Forest Range,
Sapttur,
Virudhunagar District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P(MD)No.19802 of 2021
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
ias
Crl.O.P(MD)No.19802 of 2021
14.12.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
