IMPORTANT POINT
Cognizance of offences under the Wild Life (Protection) Act can only be taken on the complaint of the authorized officers mentioned in Section 55, and the complaint should be filed in consonance with the provision under Section 2(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

ORDER :

1. This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners, being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.05.2010 in C.C.No.141/2009 on the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) and JMFC, Kollegal and its confirmation judgment and order dated 16.06.2014 in Crl.A.No.26/2010 on the file of the District and Sessions Judge at Chamarajanagara, seeking to set aside the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below, wherein the petitioners/accused are convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 9 and 39(a) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act (for short ‘Act’) and 379 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’).

Brief facts of the case are as under:

2. It is the case of the prosecution that, on 01.10.2005, at about 9.00 p.m., in the APMC Yard at Kollegala, the petitioners stated to have sold the tiger skin to accused Nos.1 and 2 and the accused Nos.1 and 2 were attempting to dispose of the same for higher price. The said tiger skin was brought in the Maruti Omni car and the said car was parked near Achgal Lodge. Based on the credible information, a case came to be registered against the accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offences stated supra.

3. To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined, in all, 11 witnesses namely PWs.1 to 11 and got marked 8 eight documents namely Exhibits P1 to P8 and also got identified M.Os.1 and 2. The Trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted the petitioners for the offences stated supra. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Appellate Court, the Appellate Court confirmed the judgment of conviction rendered by the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have preferred this revision petition seeking to set aside the concurrent findings.

4. Heard Smt.Manjula D., learned Amicus Curiae on behalf of the petitioners and Shri Rahul Rai K, learned High Court Government Pleader on behalf of the respondent – State.

5. It is the submission of learned Amicus Curiae on behalf of the petitioners that, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court and its confirmation order passed by the Appellate Court require to be set aside as the concurrent findings are perverse, illegal and opposed to facts and law.

6. It is further submitted that, the petitioners have no connection with the offences. The witnesses even though stated about the petitioners, that they have sold the tiger hide (skin) to accused Nos.1 and 2, it cannot be substantiated by the facts and circumstances of the case.

7. It is further submitted that, unless it is specifically proved that, the accused Nos.3 and 4 have sold the tiger skin to accused Nos.1 and 2, conviction cannot be recorded based on the assumption and presumption.

8. It is further submitted that, the procedure established by law that, Section 55 of the Act has not been followed, the complainant is not authorized to register the complaint and the said complainant has not lodged complaint before the Jurisdictional Magistrate as is required under the Act. Making such submission, learned Amicus Curiae for the petitioners seeks to allow the revision petition and set aside the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below.

9. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader (for short ‘HCGP’) justifying the concurrent findings and submitted that, the respondent / police have seized the tiger skin and arrested the accused and registered the case. The witnesses have consistently supported the case of the prosecution. The Courts below after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted the petitioners. Therefore, there is no infirmity and perversity in the findings recorded by the Courts below. Having submitted thus, the learned HCGP prays to dismiss the petition.

10. Having heard the rival contentions urged by the learned counsels for the respective parties and also perused the concurrent fin