The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 2297 of 2022 Anil Kumar @ Anil Singh, Age 47 Years, S/o Late Utpati Ray, Village – Boska, P.O. –Boska, Thana –Mufassil Buxar, District –Buxar (Bihar). The State of Jharkhand …. Opp. Party Versus .... Petitioner P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ….. For the Petitioner For the State
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Thakur, Advocate : Mr. P.K. Chatterjee, Spl. P.P. ….. By the Court:- 1. 2. Heard the parties. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the cognizance order dated 27.04.2021 in Chhipadohar P.S. Case No. 15 of 2018 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 411 of 2018 by which cognizance has been taken for the offences punishable under Section 379/411 of the Indian Penal Code, under Section 33/42 of the Indian Forest Act 1927, under Section 29/51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act 1972 and under Section 16 of Bihar Kendu Leaves (Control of Trade) Act 1973. 3. The brief facts of the case is that on 20.05.2018, the petitioner indulged in commission of theft of Kendu Leaves and was also dishonestly receiving the stolen property and stacking the same and stripping off the leaves of the tree and were illegally transporting the forest produce. On the basis of the written report 1 Cr.M.P. No.2297 of 2022 of the Sub-Inspector of Police, Chhipadohar P.S. Case No 15 of 2018 was registered and police took up investigation of the case. After completion of the investigation, police found the allegations against the petitioners to be true and submitted charge sheet alleging commission of the said offences, for which cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate, upon receipt of the charge sheet vide order dated 27.04.2021. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner drawing attention of this Court to Section 55 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 which reads as under:- “55. Cognizance of offences.—No court take cognizance of any offence against this Act on the complaint of any person other than— shall (a) the Director of Wild Life Preservation or any other officer authorised in this behalf by the Central Government; or in (aa) the Member-Secretary, Central Zoo Authority matters relating to violation of the provisions of Chapter IV-A; or] (ab) Member-Secretary, Tiger Conservation Authority; or (ac) Director of the concerned tiger reserve; or] (ad) the Management Authority or any officer, including an officer of the Wild Life Crime Control Bureau, authorised in this behalf by the Central Government; or] (b) the Chief Wild Life Warden, or any other officer authorised in this behalf by the State Government 232[subject to such conditions as may be specified by that Government]; or (bb) the officer-in-charge of the zoo in respect of violation of provisions of Section 38-J; 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.]” That no court shall take cognizance of any offence provided for in the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 except on the complaint of the Forest and Wild Life Conservation Officers as mentioned in 2 Cr.M.P. No.2297 of 2022 the Section 55 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 but in this case, neither any complaint was made to the Magistrate directly nor any of the said officers made any complaint to the police but even then, the learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class has committed illegality by taking cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 29/51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. 5. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner drawing attention of this Court to Section 18 of the Bihar Kendu Leaves (Control of Trade) Act, 1973 which reads as under:- “18. Cognizance of offence.—No court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act except on a complaint in writing of the facts constituting such offence made by any Forest Officer not below the rank of a Divisional Forest Officer or by any other officer authorised by the State Government in this behalf.” That no court shall take cognizance of nay offence punishable under the said Act except on complaint in writing of the facts constituting such offence made by any Forest Officer not below the rank of a Divisional Forest Officer or by any other officer authorized by the State Government in this behalf. 6. It is next submitted that as no complaint has been made directly to the learned Magistrate by any Officer authorized in terms of Section 18 of the Bihar Kendu Leaves (Control of Trade) Act, 1973. Hence it is submitted that the learned Magistrate has committed grave illegality in taking cognizance of the said offences. It is then submitted that the portion of the order by which cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate in respect of the offences punishable under Section 29/51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act 3 Cr.M.P. No.2297 of 2022 1972 and under Section 16 of Bihar Kendu Leaves (Control of Trade) Act 1973 be quashed and set aside. 7. The learned Special Public Prosecutor fairly submits that in this case, the complaint has not been made directly to the Magistrate by either the officers as prescribed in Section 55 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 or the officers authorized under the Bihar Kendu Leaves (Control of Trade) Act, 1973. So it is fairly submitted by the learned Spl. P.P. that the learned Magistrate ought not have taken the cognizance of the offences punishable under the said two Acts but it is submitted that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner of having committed the offences punishable under Section 379/411 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 33 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act 1927. Hence, it is submitted that the portion of the cognizance order so far as it relates to the offences punishable under Section 379/411 of the Indian Penal Code ought not to be interfered with. 8. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials available in the record, this Court finds force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, so far as the cognizance of the offences taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate -1st Class, Latehar in connection with the offences punishable under Section 29/51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act 1972 and under Section 16 of Bihar Kendu Leaves (Control of Trade) Act 1973 because the cognizance of the said offences can only be taken if the complaint is made by the officers/authority 4 Cr.M.P. No.2297 of 2022 prescribed therein and by no one else and indisputably, in this case, none of the officers as prescribed under the said two Acts, upon whose complaint cognizance of the offences punishable under the said two Acts can be taken, has made any complaint. Accordingly the portion of the order dated 27.04.2021, in Chhipadohar P.S. Case No. 15 of 2018 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 411 of 2018 so far as it relates to the cognizance in respect of the offences punishable under Section 29/51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act 1972 and under Section 16 of Bihar Kendu Leaves (Control of Trade) Act 1973 is quashed and set aside but the cognizance in respect of the offences punishable under Section 379/411 of the Indian Penal Code as well as under Section 33 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act 1927 is maintained. This criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent only.
Decision
This criminal miscellaneous petition is disposed of accordingly. 9. 10. High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 5th July, 2024 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/- (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) 5 Cr.M.P. No.2297 of 2022