1 M.Cr.C. No.8582 of 2013 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH: Hon’ble Shri Justice A.K. Shrivastava MISCELLANEOUS CRIMINAL CASE No.8582 of 2013 APPLICANTS:
1. Banshilal S/o Shri Dashrath Prasad Patel, aged about – 37 years, R/o Bhadra, P.S. - Tala Distt. Satna (M.P.) 2. Satendra Singh S/o Shri Rajbahoran Singh, aged about 35 years, R/o Bhadra, P.S. - Tala, Distt. - Satna (M.P.) Versus NON-APPLICANT: The State of M.P. Through Forest Range Officer Ramgarh Forest Range Mukundpur, Forest Division Satna (M.P.) ___________________________________________________ Shri Pradeep Naveriya Advocate for the applicant. Shri S.D.Khan, Public Prosecutor for the non-applicant. ORDER
(05.09.2013) This is an application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for the quashment of the case registered at Crime No.179/2009 by the non- applicant against the applicant under Section 9, 51, 52 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (in short the 'Act of 1972').
2. The sole but forceful contention made by learned counsel for 2 M.Cr.C. No.8582 of 2013 the applicant is that admittedly the charge sheet has been filed by Parikshetra Sahayak who is an inferior officer to that of Range Officer, hence the charge sheet has been filed by a person who is incompetent to file it. In this regard my attention has been drawn to rule 55 of the Wile Life (Protection) (Madhya Pradesh) Rules, 1974 (in short 'The M.P. Rules of 1974'). Hence, it has been prayed that the charge sheet be quashed.
3. Shri Khan, learned Public Prosecutor submits that if this Court comes to the conclusion that the charge sheet has not been filed by the authorized person mentioned in rule 55 of the Rules of 1974, instead of quashing the charge sheet it may be returned to the person who had filed it with a direction that it may be filed by competent person.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this application deserves to be allowed.
5. The M.P. Rules of 1974 are framed pursuant to Section 55 of the Principal Act, namely, Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (In short 'the Act of 1972'). Rule 55 of the M.P. Rules of 1974 reads thus :
“55. Cognizance of offences.- The following officers shall be authorised to make complaints under Section 55, namely :- (a) Chief Wild Life Warden; (b) Wild Life Wardens; (c) Forest Range Officers.
6. Admittedly, none of the aforesaid officer has filed the charge 3 M.Cr.C. No.8582 of 2013 sheet on the contrary the same has been filed by Parikshetra Sahayak, therefore, according to me, filing of the charge sheet is not in accordance with law. At this juncture, I would like to go through Section 55 of the Act of 1972 wherein the legislature has given a mandate that no court shall take cognizance of any offence against the said Act except on the complaint of any person other than the persons mentioned in clause (a) to (c). In the present case, clause (b) of the said Section is applicable. The said section 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) xxx xxx xxx (b) the Chief Wild Life 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 (bb) xxx xxx xxx (c) xxx xxx xxx 7. Since the State of Madhya Pradesh by framing the Rules of 1974 has authorized Chief Wild Life Warden; Wild Life Wardens; and Forest Range Officers to file the charge sheet and these officers are superior to the rank of Dy. Ranger, therefore, according to me, since the charge sheet has not been filed by any of the 4 M.Cr.C. No.8582 of 2013 aforesaid officer and as has been filed by Parikshetra Sahayak, the presentation of the charge sheet is not by competent person.
8. Eventually, this application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed and the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Satna is directed to return back the charge sheet to the non- applicant. The non-applicant shall be free to file the charge sheet in accordance with law, if otherwise permissible in law. (A.K.Shrivastava) Judge 05.09.2013 DV