U.C. Dhyani, J. (oral)
1. The applicant, by means of present application / petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeks to quash the order dated 24.02.2014 and summoning order dated 15.12.2008, as also the proceedings of criminal case no. 1641 of 2008, State of Uttarakhand vs Pancham Das, under Sections 9, 49B, 51 and 52 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate (I class), Vikasnagar, District Dehradun.
2) A charge-sheet is submitted against the present applicant under Sections 9, 49B, 50, 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. Cognizance was taken on said charge-sheet and the accused was summoned to face the trial for the selfsame offences. Aggrieved against the same, present application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. was filed.
3) The first and foremost argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that the cognizance ought to have been taken only on the complaint filed by any of the officer of the Wild Life Department. Section 55 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, is being reproduced here-in-below for convenience:
œ55. 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]
(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) 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.]?
4) It, therefore, follows that the authority concerned should have filed the criminal complaint case, instead of the charge-sheet.
5) The second limb of argument of learned counsel for the applicant is that the provision of Section 50(4) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, has been observed by breach. The said provision is also being reproduced here-in-below for reference:
œAny person detained, or things seized under the foregoing power, shall forthwith be taken before a Magistrate to be dealt with according to law [under intimation to the Chief Wild Life Warden or the officer authorised by him in this regard].?
6) It is the contention of learned counsel for the applicant that the detention and seizure was not intimated to the Chief Wild Life Warden or the officer authorised by him in this regard and, therefore, he had no opportunity to file the complaint under Section 55 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. Such contention is also acceptable. 7) The application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. deserves to be allowed in view of the aforesaid discussion. The same is, accordingly, allowed. Order dated 24.02.2014 and summoning order dated 15.12.2008, as also the proceedings of criminal case no. 1641 of 2008, State of Uttarakhand vs Pancham Das, under Sections 9, 49B, 51 and 52 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate (I Class), Vikasnagar, District Dehradun are hereby quashed.