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 No. 5(O)/2013 was lodged by the Forest Range Officer, who was also not a competent person to file the said complaint as under the provisions of section 55 of the WL Act, the complaint ought to have been filed by any of the authorities mentioned in the said section and as per section 55(b) of WL Act, the Chief Wild Life Warden was one of the competent authorities of the forest department to file the complaint, though as per section 55(b), any other officer authorized in this behalf by the State Government could have also filed the complaint in relation to the alleged wrong. But admittedly, none of the prescribed authorities, including the Chief Wild Life Warden, filed the complaint rather it was admittedly filed by the Forest Range Officer, who was also not a competent person to file the complaint. Though as per the counter affidavit filed by the forest department, the complainant, the Forest Range Officer, had been authorized by the State Government to take action under sections 27(2)(c), 41(1), 50(1) and 55(b) of the WL Act but in this regard, concerned notification was issued on 22.01.2014 while the fresh complaint had been filed on 24.03.2013 before the issuance of said notification, though as per the last two lines of the said notification, the notification was made effective retrospectively and all earlier proceedings started under the provisions of the WL Act were made covered by that notification which is completely illegal. It is further submitted that the instant matter relates to hunting of a rabbit but the name of the said animal does not find place in any of the schedules of the WL Act, though, hare has been included in the schedule IV of the WL Act but there is much difference between the rabbit and hare and both the mammals have more differences than similarities in view of their behaviour and style of life. It is lastly submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned trial court has taken cognizance under sections 9, 27 and 32 of the WL Act but there is no penal provision in any of these sections, which also shows non-application of judicial mind by the learned Magistrate while passing the impugned order and further, both the petitioners were not involved in the alleged hunting and they were not apprehended at the alleged place and they have been made accused mainly on the basis of availability and finding of a vehicle and a gun in the possession of the apprehended co-accused at the place of occurrence, which is not sufficient to make the petitioners as accused in the alleged matter.

4. In support of the aforesaid contention as to the rabbit being different from hare and the penal provisions under section 51 of the WL Act being not applicable on account of the rabbit not protected under the WL Act, the learned counsel