Back
SHAILENDRA SINGH
Rajesh Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
Shailendra Singh, J. – Heard Mr. Prabhakar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Jitendra Kumar Singh, learned APP appearing for the State.
2. The instant petition has been filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short ‘Cr.P.C.’) with a prayer to quash the order dated 07.04.2015 passed in Complaint Case No. 5(O) of 2013 by the court of C.J.M., Bhabua by which the cognizance under sections 9, 27, 32 and 51/52 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (in short ‘WL Act’) and under section 33 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (in short ‘Forest Act’) has been taken against the petitioners.
3. Mr. Prabhakar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that both the petitioners preferred criminal miscellaneous No. 15622 of 2011 challenging the order of cognizance passed in the Forest Case No. 62/2009 relating to the same matter, which was allowed mainly considering the fact that the forester, who had filed the complaint against the petitioners, was not authorized to file a criminal case under the WL Act and a liberty was given to the concerned authority to take proper steps under the WL Act and only thereafter, a fresh Complaint Case
Hunting of Rabbit – To attract violation of Section 9 of WL Act, it must be shown that a wild animal specified and detailed in schedules I, II, III and IV has been hunted.
Criminal proceedings cannot commence without a valid complaint as required by Section 55 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, rendering any prosecution based solely on a FIR legally unsustainable.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory nature of the provisions of Section 55 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, which mandates that no court shall take cognizance....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the classification of the offence under the Wild Life (Protection) Act as non-bailable based on the location and nature of the alleged offence.
Forest officials lack jurisdiction to investigate IPC offences; investigations must be conducted by police under the law.
The court ruled that a second FIR is permissible if it pertains to different incidents, emphasizing the need for wildlife protection under the law.
The main legal point established in this judgment is that procedural irregularities and violations of the Wildlife Crime Investigation Handbook can lead to the quashing of proceedings in a criminal c....
Section 50(8) authorises an officer not below rank of Assistant Director of Wild Life Preservation or Assistant Conservator of Forests to receive and record evidence.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
