Sri. Sampanna Mutalik vs. State Of Karnataka

1
R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 06 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

CRIMINAL PETITION No.5952 OF 2023
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5741 OF 2023
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5788 OF 2023

IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.5952 OF 2023

BETWEEN:

1 . SRI SAMPANNA MUTALIK
S/O VIJAYA RAO MUTALIK
OCC: PRIVATE EMPLOYMENT
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
ST
R/AT A1, 1 CROSS,
ST
OPP. 1 BUS STOP,
BAPUJI VIDYANAGARA
DAVANAGERE
KARNATAKA – 577 005.

2 . SRI KARIBASAPPA G. M.,
S/O. MAHESHWARAPPA G. B.,
OCC: PRIVATE EMPLOYMENT
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
R/AT NO. 63, ARAKERE, HONNALI
DAVANAGERE
KARNATAKA – 577 217.
... PETITIONERS

(BY SRI H.S.CHANDRAMOULI, SENIOR COUNSEL AND
SRI PRATEEK CHANDRAMOULI, ADVOCATE)



2
AND:

1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY THE ASSISTANT CONSERVATOR OF
FOREST, DAVANAGERE
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU – 560 001.

2 . SRI S.K.DEVARAJ
THE RANGE FOREST OFFICER
DAVANAGERE RANGE
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU – 560 001.
... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI JAGADEESHA B. N., ADDL. SPP. FOR R1 AND R2)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN
C.C.NO.2319/2023 (IN PCR NO.933/2022) REGISTERED AGAINST
THE PETITIONER HEREIN ARRAIGNED AS ACCUSED NO.1 AND 2
FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.51 OF THE PROTECTION OF WILDLIFE
ACT 1972 AND SEC. 465 AND 201 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE
OF THE Ld.II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC DAVANAGERE.


IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.5741 OF 2023

BETWEEN:

SRI S.S.GANESH
S/O SRI S.SHIVASHANKARAPPA



3
OCC: INDUSTRIALIST
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
R/AT NO.2634/1, SHAMNUR ROAD
MCCB BLOCK, DAVANAGERE
KARNATAKA – 577 004.
... PETITIONER

(BY SRI H.S.CHANDRAMOULI, SENIOR COUNSEL AND
KUM. KEERTHANA NAGARAJ, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY THE ASSISTANT CONSERVATOR OF
FOREST, DAVANAGERE
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU – 560 001.

2 . SRI S.K.DEVARAJ
THE RANGE FOREST OFFICER
DAVANAGERE RANGE
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU – 560 001.

... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI JAGADEESHA B. N., ADDL. SPP. FOR R1 AND R2)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN
C.C.NO.2319/2023 (IN PCR NO.933/2022) REGISTERED AGAINST
THE PETITIONER HEREIN ARRAIGNED AS ACCUSED NO.7 FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/S.51 OF THE PROTECTION OF WILDLIFE ACT 1972



4
AND SEC.465 AND 201 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE Ld.
ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC DAVANAGERE.

IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.5788 OF 2023

BETWEEN:

MR. S.S.MALLIKARJUNA
S/O SHAMNUR SHIVASHANKARAPPA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/AT NO.2636/1, “SHIVAPARVATHI”
MCC (B) BLOCK, DAVANAGERE
KARNATAKA – 570 004.

... PETITIONER

(BY SRI SANDESH CHOUTA, SENIOR COUNSEL REPR., AND
SMT. LEELA P.DEVADIGA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY DEPARTMENT OF FOREST
BY RANGE FOREST OFFICER
DAVANAGERE RANGE,
DAVANAGERE
REP. BY THE
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU – 560 001.

2 . SRI S.K.DEVARAJ
S/O NOT KNOWN
AGED ABOUT NOT KNOWN
RANGE FOREST OFFICER
DAVANAGERE RANGE



5
DAVANAGERE – 577 002.
... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI JAGADEESHA B. N., ADDL. SPP. FOR R1 AND R2)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE FINAL REPORT DATED
08.05.2023 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE C IN C.C.NO.2319/2023 AND
ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.2319/2023 PURSUANT
nd
THERETO PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE 2 ADDITIONAL CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC JUDGE, DAVANAGERE FOR OFFENCE
P/U/S.39,47,48,49,52,40(1),40(2),58 R/W SEC.51 OF WILDLIFE
(PROTECTIONS) ACT 1972 AND SEC.465,201 OF IPC PRODUCED AT
ANNEXURE A INSOFAR AS PETITIONER IS CONCERNED.

THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 18.08.2023, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

ORDER

Batch of these petitions are preferred by the accused in a
solitary crime. Different petitions are preferred by different
accused. Criminal Petition No.5952 of 2023 is preferred by accused
Nos.1 and 2; Criminal Petition No.5788 of 2023 is preferred by
accused No.4 and Criminal Petition No.5741 of 2023 is preferred by
accused No.7. They are all accused in Criminal Case No.2319 of



6
2023 pending before the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC,
Davanagere. Since facts that trigger registration of the crime are
common, these petitions are taken up together and considered by
this order.

2. Facts, in brief, adumbrated are as follows:

(I) Criminal Petition No.5952 of 2023:
(a) It is the case of the prosecution that it received credible
information that an unknown person by name Senthil was standing
in front of S.V. Complex, No.19, Bellary Road, Bengaluru and was
found selling skin, antlers and teeth of wild animals. On such
information being received, the sleuths of Hebbala Police Station
with panchas apprehended Senthil and seized items mentioned
supra . The jurisdictional police then registered a Forest Offence
Crime (‘FOC’) in FOC No.1 of 2022 for offences punishable under
Sections 39, 40, 48(a), 49(b), 50, 51, 55(b) of the Wild Life
(Protection) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for
short).




7
(b) Mr. Senthil was interrogated and thereafter, he was
arrayed as accused No.1. He tenders his voluntary statement that
he was rearing wild animals on instructions of the owner of
Kalleshwar Rice Mills located in Anekonda, Davanagere District.
Based on the said information, the Women Protection Wing of the
CCB along with staff and panchas searched Kalleshwar Rice Mill and
drew up a mahazar. The search was conducted on 21-12-2022.
The product of the search was communicated to the Assistant
Conservator of Forests, Davanagere for further action. The Range
Forest Officer then files a written complaint before the Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Davanagere under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C.
against three persons viz ., Sampanna, G.M. Karibasaiah and
Senthil. Sampanna and G.M. Karibasaiah are petitioners in the
subject petition. The offences alleged in the said private complaint
are the ones punishable under Sections 9, 39, 44, 48(a) and 51 of
the Act. The crux of the complaint was that, on 21-12-2022 the
complainant along with his staff members had visited the godown
behind Samson Distilleries located in Anekonda Village, Davanagere
Taluk wherein, the complainant found items specified, that were
illegally kept in unlawful possession of the said accused. The



8
learned Magistrate on filing of the complaint, acting under Section
190(1)(a) of the Cr.P.C. takes cognizance of the offence under
Section 51 of the Act. A direction was issued to investigate into the
offence acting under Section 202(1) of the Cr.P.C., to the Assistant
Conservator of Forests, Davanagere to conduct investigation and
submit a report on or before 21.02.2023. The Investigating Officer
then seeks all the documents pertaining to FOC No.1 of 2022, which
was registered at Bangalore from the office of the CCB, which had
conducted a search at Davanagere. After the said investigation, the
Assistant Conservator of Forests registers a FIR under Rule 65(1) of
the Karnataka Forest Manual for offences punishable under Sections
9, 40, 42, 42(a), 44, 48(a), 51 and 57 of the Act. Accused No.4 is
added into these proceedings. Accused No.4 is the petitioner in the
companion petition. On 29-04-2023, the Deputy Conservator of
Forests seeks details of the investigation undertaken by the
Investigating Officer along with statements of the accused recorded
during investigation. As directed by the learned Magistrate, final
report was filed before the Court on 08-05-2023. On 08-05-2023,
on perusal of the final report, the learned Magistrate takes
cognizance yet again against all the accused – accused Nos.1 to 7,



9
who were named in the final report for offences punishable under
Section 51 of the Act. Apart from the said provision of the Act, the
learned Magistrate opined that there was sufficient material to take
cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 465 and 201
of the IPC as well and registers a criminal case in C.C.No.2319 of
2023 against seven accused. The seven accused are as follows:
(i) Sampanna, (ii) G.M. Karibasappa, (iii) Senthil V,
(iv) S.S.Mallikarjun, (v) Kadu Junjappa @ Kadu Junja,
(vi) Anjinappa C and (vii) S.S. Ganesh.

(II) Criminal Petition No.5788 of 2023:

The petitioner in this petition is accused No.4 in C.C.No.2319
of 2023 and how this accused gets roped into the web of crime is
already narrated hereinabove as the facts that led to arraigning of
accused No.4 are similar to what is narrated supra .

(III) Criminal Petition No.5741 of 2023:

This petition is preferred by accused No.7 in C.C.No.2319 of
2023. This accused is roped into the web of crime, facts of which



10
are as narrated while narrating the facts in Criminal Petition
No.5952 of 2023. Therefore, the subject criminal petitions are
preferred by accused Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 7.

3. Heard learned senior counsel Sri Sandesh J. Chouta,
appearing for the petitioner in Criminal Petition No.5788 of 2023;
learned counsel Ms. Keerthana Nagaraj appearing for petitioners in
Criminal Petition No.5952 of 2023 and Criminal Petition No.5741 of
2023 and the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor
Sri B.N. Jagadeesha, representing the respondents in all the cases.

4. The learned senior counsel Sri Sandesh J. Chouta would
contend that the procedure in which the investigation on the
complaint was to be done under the Wildlife Offence Report
No.1/2022 should have been completed therein as it is a complete
code by itself. The registration of second FIR in FOC No.20 of 2022
in the teeth of the first FIR in FOC/WLOR No.1 of 2022 is clearly
barred in law as there can be one crime registered for one offence.
It is his submission that the entire procedure that is required for
conduct of search and seizure are all thrown to the winds in the



11
cases at hand. The learned Magistrate has taken up proceedings
completely contrary to law. He would, therefore, seek quashment of
the entire proceedings on the aforesaid procedural aberrations.
Apart from the aforesaid fact, he would also emphasise on the fact
that entire proceedings are hit by mala fides and political vendetta
as the charge sheet is filed on 08-05-2023 and elections to the
Karnataka State Legislative Assembly were to take place on
10-05-2023 in which accused No.4 was to contest from Davanagere
North constituency.

5. Ms. Keerthana Nagaraj, learned counsel for petitioners in
the companion petitions taking this Court through the documents
appended to the petitions would seek to contend that there are
procedural violations in registration of the case and order of, taking
cognizance. They are incurable illegalities. She would rely on the
Wildlife Crime Investigation Handbook, which is followed as being a
complete codified procedure for investigation of wildlife offences
and would further submit that Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. under
which power is exercised by the learned Magistrate should have
been taken to its logical conclusion and there was no question of



12
reference being made under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. It is her
further contention that taking of dual cognizance is contrary to law.
Likewise, hybrid investigation or trial is impermissible in law. Both
the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would place
reliance upon the following judgments of the Apex Court and this
1
Court : (i) T.T. ANTHONY v. STATE OF KERALA ; (ii) B.V. BYRE
2
GOWDA v. NISAR AHMED ; (iii) KAPIL AGARWAL v. SANJAY
3 4
SHARMA ; (iv) STATE OF HARYANA v. BHAJAN LAL ;
(v) KAILASH VIJAYVARGIYA v. RAJLAKSHMI CHAUDHURI
5
AND OTHERS ; (vi) BIRLA CORPORATION LIMITED v.
6
ADVENTZ INVESTMENTS AND HOLDINGS LIMITED ; (vii)
7
NATIONAL BANK OF OMAN v. BARAKARA ABDUL AZIZ and
(viii) D. LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY v. V. NARAYANA
8
REDDY .


1
(2001) 6 SCC 181
2
Crl.P.No.3171 of 2018 decided on 20-09-2021
3
(2021) 5 SCC 524
4
1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
5
2023 SCC OnLine SC 569
6
(2019) 16 SCC 610
7
(2013) 2 SCC 488
8
AIR 1976 SC 1672



13
6. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor
Sri.B.N.Jagadeesha would refute the submissions to contend that a
prima facie case is made out against the petitioners. None of the
procedural violations that are projected by the petitioners would
vitiate the proceedings. Prima facie , the petitioners have been
found guilty of the offences and, therefore, further proceedings
ought to be continued against these petitioners. The petitioners
have committed serious offences which are punishable under the
provisions of the Act and, therefore, there should be no interdiction
or quashment of proceedings merely because there are some trivial
procedural violations. He would seek dismissal of the petitions.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions
made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the
material on record.

8. The afore-narrated facts, dates and link in the chain of
events are all a matter of record and, therefore, they would not
require any reiteration. The offences alleged against these
petitioners are the ones punishable under Sections 9, 39, 40, 48A,



14
49B, 50, 51, 55(b) and 57 of the Act. For offences punishable
under the aforesaid provisions of the Act, if investigation has to be
conducted, it has to be in terms of the Wildlife Crime Investigation
Handbook. This is an admitted fact. Therefore, I deem it
appropriate to notice the procedure stipulated for investigating the
offences under the Act. Chapter-3 deals with registration of FOC
which is akin to FIR, which also is sometimes named as Wildlife
Offence Report (‘WLOR’). Clauses 3.1 to 3.3 thereof read as
follows:
“3.1. In conventional crimes, investigation starts with
registration of the case as First Information Report (FIR).
Recovery of material evidence (stolen property, weapons,
vehicles etc) takes place only after registration of the case.
However, in wildlife crime cases, the seizure of the wildlife/
wildlife article or apprehension of the accused/suspect may
take place before registration of the case. In other words,
in wildlife offences, investigation may start with lodging of
a seizure / apprehension report or the offence report, in the
jurisdictional court, by an authorised officer, who makes
such seizure or arrest in different States this report is
known by different names such as the Preliminary Offence
Report (POR), H-2 Case, Offence Report. First Information
Report (FIR), Seizure Intimation etc. However, it has been
observed that some of the judicial officers who are new to
wildlife crime cases doubt the legitimacy of such reports
and insist on FIR/POR. There are some incidents where the
jurisdictional magistrates refused to accept such reports as
they are not on par with the First Information Report (FIR)
filed by the police. In order to avoid such technical
problems and to bring uniformity in practice, it is suggested
that the first report submitted in the jurisdictional court in
wildlife crime cases may be named as Wildlife Offence



15
Report (WLOR) . The Wildlife Offence Report should be
prepared under Section 50(4) of the Wild Life (Protection)
Act, 1972. A standard format for Wildlife Offence Report is
given at Annexure-III .

3.2 Check list for preparing Wildlife Offence Report
(WLOR):

(i) Every WLOR should be assigned a serial
number maintained year wise eg: WLOR No.
1/2012 of _____, dated _____,Forest Range,
Division/TRs)

(ii) Date and time of receipt of information at the
Forest Range or detection of the offence should
be mentioned in the WLOR.

(ii) WLOR should be prepared only on the
standard format.

(iv) All columns in the WLOR should be duly filled.

(v) Correct Sections of law should be applied.

(vi) Address, present and permanent, parentage,
age, sex etc of all the known accused/ suspects
are to be mentioned in the WLOR.

(vii) If the accused/suspects are not known, the
same should be mentioned in the WLOR.

(vii) In case of involvement of unknown accused,
the words "and other unknown accused"
should be mentioned after the list of the known
accused.

(ix) Information part of the WLOR should be in
simple language and without any ambiguity. It
should provide sufficient grounds for
proceeding against the accused

(x) Details of the wildlife involved, both common
name and scientific name, Schedule under



16
which the animal is listed in the WL
(Protection) Act, quantum of punishment for
the offence etc., should be incorporated in the
information part.

(xi) Name and rank of the Investigating Officer,
officer who made the seizure and the officer
who wrote the WLOR should be mentioned in
the WLOR

(xii) Delay in lodging of the WLOR should be
avoided. In exceptional circumstances, if delay
occurs, reasons for the same should be
explained in the WLOR.

(xiii) Copy of the WLOR should be sent to the
immediate supervisory officer and CWLW or
officer authorised by him, without delay. This is
needed so that immediate supervisory officer is
aware of the commission of the offense under
his jurisdiction and also enables him to advise/
monitor the progress in its investigation.

3.3. Registration of FIR and investigation of offences under
the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, by police officer -
Violations of the provisions of the Act are not specified as
cognizable offence, therefore, police officers are often
unwilling to lodge FIR and investigate offences reported
under the provisions of the Act. It is clarified that under
Part-II of Schedule-1 of the Criminal Procedure Code,
1973, offences against other laws, if punishable with
imprisonment for 3 years and upwards are classified as
cognizable. Most of the offences under the Act are
punishable with imprisonment for 3 or more years.
Therefore, an Officer In charge of a Police Station is bound
to lodge an FIR and investigate the case like any other
cognizable offence. However, courts shall take cognizance
of any offence against the Act only on the complaint
submitted by any person specified under Section 55 of the
Act. Therefore, if Police officers in the State concerned are
not authorized to file complaints under Section 55 of the
Act, the Police report is to be submitted in the Court as
complaint through an authorized forest officer. Once a



17
complaint is filed in court, no further investigation will be
conducted without the direction of the Court Further, there
is no provision for filing supplementary complaint once a
complaint is filed. Therefore, any subsequent discovery,
seizure, arrest etc. will be treated as fresh case and
separate complaint filed in the Court.”
(Emphasis supplied)
Chapter-6 deals with investigation and complaint. Clauses 6.1, 6.4,
6.5, 6.45, 6.47, 6.51, 6.52, 6.54 and 6.55 are germane to be
noticed and they read as follows:
“6.1 The word investigation has been defined in
Section 2(h) of the Criminal Procedure Code 1973 as;

"Investigation includes all the proceedings under this
Code (Criminal Procedure Code) for the collection of
evidence, conducted by a police officer or by any
person (other than a Magistrate) who is authorised
by a Magistrate in this behalf". A criminal
investigation is a patient, step by step process of
discovering collecting, preparing, identifying and
presenting evidence within the legal frame work.

6.4. As per Section 50 of the Wild Life (Protection)
Act, 1972, the Director of Wildlife Preservation or
any other officer authorised by him in this behalf or
the Chief Wildlife Warden or the authorised officer or
any Forest Officer or any Police Officer not below the
rank of Sub Inspector are empowered to enter into
any place where the wildlife materials are suspected
to be kept, conduct search for such wildlife materials
and seize the same, arrest and detain the accused or
the suspect. It is to be understood that all the
actions together constitute investigation within the
legal frame work of the Wild Life (Protection) Act,
1972.
6.5. In a typical case of wildlife crime, the
investigating officer should plan investigation in the
following manner:



18
(i) Investigation at the scene of crime/scene of
occurrence/Post Mortem of Carcass

(ii) Interrogation of the accused(s)/suspect(s)

(iii) Examination of the witness (es)

iv) Collection of documentary evidence(s)/samples for
expert opinion.

(v) Collection of scientific/forensic evidence/digital
evidence(s)

(vi) Collection and analysis of the evidence(s)

(vii) Filing complaint u/s 55 of the Wild Life (Protection)
Act, 1972.

6.45. Competence of an officer to file the complaint
under section 55 of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972,
is a matter of prime importance. The complaint has
to be filed primarily by the Director of Wildlife
Preservation or by any officer authorised by the
Central Government or by the Chief Wildlife Warden
or by any other officer authorised by the State
Government. Therefore, before filing the complaint,
the officer filing the complaint should ensure that he
is authorised to file the complaint as envisaged under
section 55 of the Act.

6.47. The complaint filed under section 55 of the Act, is to
be treated as a complaint filed by public servant acting or
purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties as
mentioned in section 200(a) of Code of Criminal Procedure
(Cr.P.C).

6.51. Statements of all the witnesses, including the
official witnesses, recorded u/s 50(8) of the Act, as
per the list of witnesses, confessional statements of
the accused and statements recorded by the
Magistrate u/s 164 Cr.P.C, if any, should be filed
along with the complaint.




19
6.52 All documents in original or certified copy, as
per the list of documents enclosed, should be
submitted along with the Complaint. A
comprehensive list of documents which are to be
compulsorily submitted along with the Complaint is
given below:


(i) Copy of the Government notification
empowering the authorised officer to file
complaint u/s 55 of the Act.


(ii) Notification under Section 50 of the Act
empowering the officers to conduct search,
arrest and investigation.


(iii) Sketch of the scene of crime/scene of
occurrence and Crime Scene Inspection
Memo.

(iv) Where the scene of crime/scene of
occurrence is a protected area like National
Park, Sanctuary or a Tiger Reserve, copy of
the Government Notification declaring the
area as a National Park, Sanctuary or a Tiger
Reserve.

(v) In case of unnatural deaths or hunting of
animals, the Post Mortem report obtained
from the Government Veterinary
Surgeon(s)/ Team of VSs.

(vi) Reports of experts from Forensic Science
Laboratory, Wildlife Institute of India,
Zoological Survey of India, Botanical Survey
of India etc.

(vii) A sheet containing specimens of the seals
used for sealing the materials seized.


(viii) Copy of documents proving ownership of
vehicles seized, house/shops etc from where
the seizure was made.



20

(ix) In case of seizure of fire arms, certified copy
of the Ballistic examination report.

(x) In case of seizure of mobile phones, the Call
Data Records (CDR), only if it is relevant to
the case. If these are cited as evidence, a
certificate under section 65 B of Indian
Evidence Act should be obtained from
service providers.

(xi) Photographs of the seized material, scene of
crime/scene of occurrence or videographs of
the Post mortem etc on CDs.

(xii) Copy of the WLOR.

(xiii) All the other documents collected during the
course of investigation which are relevant to
the case in hand.

(xiv) List of witnesses.

6.54 Once a complaint is filed in court, there is no
provision for further investigation or submission of
supplementary complaints in the case.

6.55. A Flow Chart of the sequential steps to be
followed by an Investigation Officer in wildlife crime
investigation process is given at Annexure - XII.”

(Emphasis supplied)
Chapter-6, in which the afore-quoted clauses would come, deals
with investigation and complaint. Clause 6.5 ( supra ) deals with
investigation into a wildlife crime and the manner of investigation is
stipulated. Sub-clause (vii) thereof deals with complaints filed
under Section 55 of the Act. Clause 6.45 deals with filing of



21
complaint under Section 55 of the Act by a competent Officer and
who is competent is also depicted. A complaint filed under Section
55 of the Act is to be treated as a complaint filed by a public
servant in the discharge of his official duties as obtaining under
Section 200 (a) of the Cr.P.C. Clause 6.51 directs that statements
of all witnesses should be recorded in terms of the procedure
stipulated in clause 6.52. Clause 6.52 mandates that the complaint
filed before the learned Magistrate should compulsorily contain
certain documents, two of which are a copy of the WLOR and list of
witnesses. Once the complaint is filed before the Court, there is no
provision for further investigation or submission of supplementary
complaint in a given case. Clause 6.55 depicts flow chart as
obtaining in the annexures appended to the manual. The annexures
i.e., Annexures XI and XII read as follows:
“ ANNEXURE - XI
Complaint In A Wildlife Offence
(U/s 55 of Wild Life (Protection) Act 1972)

22

Name & designation of the complainant
With office seal
To
The Chief Judicial Magistrate/JMFC
(Address)




23

Non production of
requisite
documents

One or more offences under following Sections of WL(P) Act,
1972:
I) 17A, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33A and 35 – up to 3 years
II) 9, 39, 44, 48A and 49B - 3-7 years


D-WLP (Or)
Authorized
Officer
(B)

Officers empowered for
prevention and detection of WL
Offences under Section 50(1)
of WLP Act
CWLW (or)
Authorized
officer
Any forest
officer



Police Officer
not below the
rank of SI






24
(C)

Person Arrested And Things Seized Are To Be Produced Before The
Magistrate Under Intimation To The Chief Wildlife Warden Of The
State Of Officer Authorized By Him Under Section 50(4) of the
WLP Act


(D)
Process/Methodology for investigation of a wildlife offence


Forest/
Wildlife/WCCB
Police (on
next page)


No arrest/ seizure but
only trustworthy
information of
commission of offence
has been received



Preliminary
investigation
Seizure under
Arrest/detent
Sec. 50(1)(c)
ion
under Section
50(3)

otherwise Process
Ends

A)Information to CWLW/
Authorized Officer u/s
50(4)
B) Intimation to
immediate supervisory
officer

25

otherwise

26
Police Investigation Process/Methodology Wildlife
Offences are cognizable as per Part II of Schedule – I of the
Criminal Procedure Code

If the offence
is made
under WLPA
along with
other Acts/or
IPC Sections
IPC

If the offence is
under WLPA alone
and Police is
authorized by the
State Govt. u/s
55(b)
If offence
made out is
under WLPA
alone and
Police is not
authorized
by the State
Govt.




Charge
Sheet will be
filed in the
court of law
Police will
hand over
case to
FD/WL/WCCB



Complaint will be
filed in the court of
law



TRIAL IN COURT
This is the frame work of the handbook which is to be followed in
every case of wildlife offence. It is a complete code from
registration of crime till investigation.



27


9. On the bedrock of what is quoted hereinabove, the
procedure followed is what is required to be noticed. After conduct
of search and seizure if the wildlife offence is detected, then the
Forest Officer has to record all the details in the Wildlife Offence
Register in terms of prescribed format and prepare a Wildlife
Offence Report in terms of flow chart depicted hereinabove. This is
given a complete go-bye. It is thereafter, the complaint would be
preferred before the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 200 of
the Cr.P.C. This procedure is violated for it to become topsy-
turvy . What the Range Forest Officer would do is to register the
FIR at the outset and later, file a complaint before the learned
Magistrate both of which are on the same offence.

10. The duty of the learned Magistrate is to conduct an
inquiry under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. to find out whether at all
the matter would require investigation by a criminal Court. There
was no question of referring the matter under Section 156(3) of the
Cr.P.C. to decide whether Section 204 Cr.P.C. should be followed or



28
otherwise. Sections 202 and 204 of the Cr.P.C. are completely
violated in the case at hand.

11. On 08-05-2023 after the final report was placed before
the learned Magistrate, the learned Magistrate takes cognizance of
the offence under Section 190(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. for the offences
under Section 51 of the Act and Sections 465 and 201 of the IPC.
This is the second cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate.
What is the first is required to be noticed. When the complaint is
registered by the Range Forest Officer on 21-12-2022 invoking
Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. for the afore-quoted offences, the
learned Magistrate takes cognizance and issues summons acting
under Section 190(1)(a) of the Cr.P.C. Section 190 of the Cr.P.C.
reads as follows:
“ 190. Cognizance of offences by Magistrates .—
(1) Subject to the provisions of this Chapter, any
Magistrate of the first class, and any Magistrate of the
second class specially empowered in this behalf under sub-
section (2), may take cognizance of any offence—
(a) upon receiving a complaint of facts which constitute
such offence;
(b) upon a police report of such facts;



29
(c) upon information received from any person other
than a police officer, or upon his own knowledge,
that such offence has been committed.
(2) The Chief Judicial Magistrate may empower any
Magistrate of the second class to take cognizance under
sub-section (1) of such offences as are within his
competence to inquire into or try.”

The learned Magistrate can take cognizance under both the
provisions i.e., Section 190(1)(a) or 190(1)(b)(c) of the Cr.P.C.
One would be on the police report and the other would be on the
product of the inquiry directed under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C.
Both deal with taking of cognizance. Once having taken
cognizance, it was clearly impermissible in law to have taken
cognizance yet again on 08-05-2023 for the offence that had
already been taken cognizance on 22-12-2022. Therefore, the
procedure followed by the learned Magistrate is also topsy-turvy.

12. As observed hereinabove, the offences under the Act
would fall under the manual which is a complete code by itself. The
Police by registering Criminal Case No.2319 of 2023 have envisaged
a situation of hybrid trial for the same offence before one forum
i.e., the learned Magistrate. This is also impermissible in law as



30
there is marked difference between the enquiry to be conducted
under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. and the reference being made by
the learned Magistrate for conduct of investigation under Section
156(3) of the Cr.P.C. The net result of all the aforesaid actions is
multiple criminal proceedings being registered on the same offence
which is clearly impermissible in law.

13. Reference being made to the judgment of the Apex Court
in the case of T.T.ANTHONY (supra) and the order passed by this
Court in the case of B.V. BYRE GOWDA (supra) , which followed
the judgment in the case of T.T.ANTHONY in the circumstances
becomes apposite. The Apex Court in the case of T.T. ANTHONY
has held as follows:
“20. From the above discussion it follows that under
the scheme of the provisions of Sections 154, 155, 156,
157, 162, 169, 170 and 173 CrPC only the earliest or the
first information in regard to the commission of a
cognizable offence satisfies the requirements of Section
154 CrPC. Thus there can be no second FIR and
consequently there can be no fresh investigation on receipt
of every subsequent information in respect of the same
cognizable offence or the same occurrence or incident
giving rise to one or more cognizable offences. On receipt
of information about a cognizable offence or an incident
giving rise to a cognizable offence or offences and on
entering the FIR in the station house diary, the officer in
charge of a police station has to investigate not merely the



31
cognizable offence reported in the FIR but also other
connected offences found to have been committed in the
course of the same transaction or the same occurrence and
file one or more reports as provided in Section 173 CrPC.”

This Court in B.V.Byre Gowda (supra) has held as follows:

32

33

34

35

36

37

38
offences in the second complaint becoming a second FIR on
sameness. It would amount to permitting multiple FIRs’ on
the very same - incident, time of the incident, date of the
incident and by the very same complainant. It would be hit
by the doctrine of sameness as held by the Apex Court in
the afore-extracted judgments. Therefore, insofar as
Crime No.224 of 2018 is concerned, the criminal trial
cannot be permitted to continue as it would fall foul of the
cardinal principle of violation of fundamental rights of a
citizen and the law laid down by the Apex Court, as
aforesaid.

13. A counter complaint is always permissible on the same
incident as there can be complaints and two FIRs’, if it is a
case of complaint and counter complaint or a case of
consequential complaint. These are not the facts in the
case at hand. Therefore, without a shadow of doubt it
would hit by ‘doctrine of sameness’ .”



14. Insofar as the procedure followed by the learned
Magistrate in referring the matter for investigation under Section
156(3) of the Cr.P.C., after having taken cognizance and referred
the matter for inquiry under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. is concerned
there is a marked difference that the inquiry under Section 202 of
the Cr.P.C. and reference under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. is
ordered. The Apex Court in the case of KAILASH VIJAYVARGIYA
(supra) has elucidated the difference between the two. The Apex
Court has held as follows:




39

40

41

(Emphasis supplied)

In the teeth of the aforesaid facts whether further proceedings
could be permitted to be continued or otherwise is required to be
answered and the answer is an unequivocal and emphatic ‘ no’ , as if
such proceedings are permitted to continue it would run foul of the
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of BHAJAN LAL (supra),
wherein it is held as follows:

42

43

course of the order are only for the purpose of
consideration of the case of petitioners under Section



44
482 of Cr.P.C. and the same shall not bind or influence
the proceedings against any other accused pending
before the learned Magistrate or any other fora.



Sd/-
J UDGE
nvj
CT:SS