In a criminal revision petition, the Karnataka High Court dismissed the State's challenge to an order of acquittal. The court held there were no grounds for interference as the trial and appellate courts correctly ruled that a police officer lacked the authority to file a complaint under the Wild Life (Protection) Act.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CRL.RP.No.408/2010
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL, 2015
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE A.S.PACHHAPURE
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.408/2010
BETWEEN:
STATE OF KARNATAKA.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
AND:
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI C.M.JAGADEESH, ADV. FOR R3 R1 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
-2-
CRL.RP.No.408/2010
THIS CRL.RP FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL IN C.C.NO.30/2000 BEFORE THE III ADDL. CJM., MYSORE, ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED/RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 3 FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 41 & 51 OF WILD LIFE PROTECTION ACT, 1972 R/W 379 OF IPC AND AFFIRMED BY THE PRL. DIST. & S.J. MYSORE IN CRL.A.350/07 ON 20.10.09.
THIS CRL.RP COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
Though the matter is posed to take steps, the matter is taken up for admission.
order acquitting the respondents for the charges
under Sections 41 and 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 r/w Section 379 of IPC, confirmed in the appeal by the Sessions Judge in Crl.A.No.350/2007.
CCB, Mysore City when he as on duty, received anonymous call about certain persons having been in illegal possession of Ivories and therefore,
accompanied by the police, he went to the premises in
-3-
CRL.RP.No.408/2010
which the respondents were found with Ivories and in
the circumstance, apprehended them and registered complaint in Cr.No.61/1999 for the aforesaid offences. Investigation was held and a charge sheet was laid against the respondents for the aforesaid charges.
After recording the evidence, the trial Court heard the learned counsel and on appreciation of the evidence on record, acquitted the respondents for the aforesaid charges. The said order of acquittal was confirmed by the Sessions Judge in the appeal. Aggrieved by the orders of the Courts below, the present revision petition is filed by the State.
Pleader.
-4-
CRL.RP.No.408/2010
(Protection) Act, 1972. A complaint in respect of the offences under aforesaid Act has to be filed by the Officer enumerated in Section 55 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. The same reads as under:
“55. 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) 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 Wildlife 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
CRL.RP.No.408/2010
-5-
[(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 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 officer authorised as aforesaid.]”
has no competency or authority to file a complaint for an offence under the aforesaid Act. Sofar as the offence under Section 379 of IPC is concerned, it is similar to the one under Section 41 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and when a person is charge sheeted for an offence under special Act, the provisions of general law are not applicable and though the complaint is given for the offence under Section 379 of IPC, it cannot be maintained. It is for this reason, the trial Court and also the First Appellate Court held that the police inspector had no authority to register the complaint on his own for
-6-
CRL.RP.No.408/2010
the offence under the aforesaid Act and therefore,
the respondents were granted an order of acquittal.
7. On perusal of the impugned judgment and
order and material placed on record, I do not find any grounds to warrant interference in the order of acquittal.
Consequently, the revision petition fails and it
is accordingly dismissed.
VM
3 issues framed by the court
Whether there are grounds to interfere with the order of acquittal in a Wild Life Protection Act case where the complaint was filed by a police officer under Section 55.
Whether a police officer has the authority to file a complaint under Section 55 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.
Whether the CrPC provisions apply when an offence is charged under a special Act like the Wild Life (Protection) Act.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
State of Karnataka
Ahamathulla Ansari @ Ahmad
Kumara @ Kumaranaika
Naga @ Naganaiika
A.S. Pachhapure
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
