ORDER

K.N. Phaneendra, J.

Petitioners who are arrayed as accused Nos. 1 & 2 in C.C. No. 773/2012 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Kadur have sought for quashing of the said proceedings instituted against them for the offences punishable under Sections 2(2), 2(16), 2(31)(a)(b), 2(36), 9(1) r/w 51 of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 r/w section 30 of Arms Act, 1959 r/w section 34 of I.P.C.

2. The Police Sub-Inspector of Kadur Police has registered a case in FIR Crime No. 297/2010 for the offences punishable under Sections 2(2)(31)(a), 9, 39, 44, 51 of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. The charge sheet papers reveal that on 24.09.2010 the Police Sub-Inspector, Crime Branch, Kadur received credible information that some persons are carrying some Wild animal's skin in a gunny bag for the purpose of selling and they were coming from the direction of Sakharayapatna. Immediately the PSI along with his staff went to that particular place i.e. Kanaka Circle in U.B. Road, Kadur. They observed two persons coming towards the direction of the Bus Stand holding a gunny bag. On seeing the Police, they tried to escape from the clutches of the Police. However, the Police were successful in catching them. On opening the gunny bag which was in the hands of one of the accused by name Thimme Gowda, the Police found that there was skin of a cheetah a wild animal (wild cat). The petitioners did not give any proper explanation for possessing the said skin of the wild animal. Therefore, the Police have registered a case and proceeded with the investigation. Ultimately, after due investigation a charge sheet came to be filed for the above said offences along with the offence under the provision of Arms Act. In the charge sheet, it is stated that the accused persons have killed a wild cat by firing it and therefore, they invoked Section 30 of the Arms Act.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners attacked the above said proceedings on the ground that Section 55 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act is bar to take cognizance without there being a private complaint filed by the competent authority as contemplated under the said provision. Further, he contended that Section 30 of the Arms Act is also non-cognizable offence without there being a permission from the Magistrate under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C, the Investigating Officer has no jurisdiction to investigate and file any charge sheet.

4. As could be seen from the records, the first information report shows that the provision invoked are all under the Wild Life (Protection) Act. Subsequently, at the time of filing charge sheet, the provision under Section 30 of the Arms Act was also invoked by the Investigating Officer. Whether the Police Officer can file a complaint before the Magistrate under Section 55 of the Act has to be looked into. Section 55 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 reads as follows :

"55. Cognizance of offence.-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 authorized 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 IV A; or

(ab) Member-Secretary, Tiger Conservation Authority; or

(ac) Director of the concerned tiger reserve; or

(b) the Chief Wild Life Warden, or any other Officer authorized 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 38; 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 authorized as aforesaid".

5. The above said provision is a mandatory provision which debars the Court from taking cognizance of any offence un