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.

ORDER :

J. C. DOSHI, J.

1. By way of the present petition, petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:-

“A) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to quash and set aside the Forest Offence First Report No. 2/2009-10 dated 6.11.2009 and the charge-sheet filed thereunder before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Talala.

(B) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the Application, YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to stay further proceedings of the impugned Forest Offence First Report, in the interest of justice;”

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:-

2. The petitioner, a journalist associated with NDTV for over 14 years and a South Gujarat correspondent, had visited the Gir National Park and Sanctuary on 4th and 5th November 2009 along with two others—Ajay Patel and Bhavik Gonnavala, who are affiliated with the NGO “Prayas” working in the field of animal and environmental welfare. The group had entered the forest with valid permits and in the company of an official guide. Later that night, while refueling his vehicle in the city area, the petitioner was informed by local villagers that a lion was seen consuming its prey in an agricultural field outside the sanctuary limits. Out of curiosity, the petitioner and his companions proceeded towards the said location, which falls within the revenue area and not within the forest boundary. Several villagers had already gathered at the site to witness the scene.

2.2. At that juncture, the petitioner and his companions were intercepted by the local Range Forest Officer, who, upon learning of the petitioner’s journalistic credentials, suspected him of conducting a sting operation. Consequently, a Forest Offence First Report was registered in the early hours of 6th November 2009 under Sections 2 (16)(b), 2(33), 9, 39 and 51 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, alleging that the petitioner had disturbed a lion while it was feeding. Notably, there was no allegation or evidence of hunting, nor were any weapons or contraband recovered from the petitioner. The incident location being outside the forest limits was corroborated by the Gram Panchayat's Rojkam. The petitioner was released on bail on the same day, and thereafter a charge-sheet was filed. The petitioner contends that the continuation of the criminal proceedings in such circumstances would amount to abuse of the process of law.

SUBMISSION OF THE PETITIONER:-

3. Learned advocate Mr. Aditya J. Pandya, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the allegations levelled against the petitioner do not attract the essential ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 2 (16)(b), 2(33), 9, 39, and 51 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. It was pointed out that the factual matrix emerging from the FIR reveals that on 04.11.2009, at around 5:00 a.m., the petitioner, along with certain other individuals, was allegedly found flashing a light upon a lion and clicking photographs while the animal was consuming its prey. On the basis of these allegations, it is submitted that, even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, the statutory ingredients of the alleged offences are not satisfied.

3.1. It is further submitted that the proceedings suffer from a fundamental legal infirmity. Attention is drawn to the provisions of Section 55 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, which clearly prescribe a statutory bar against cognizance being taken by the Court unless a complaint, as contemplated therein, is filed by the persons or authorities specified under the said provision. The contention is that, in the present case, no such complaint has been filed, and instead, the prosecution has proceeded on the basis of a chargesheet arising out of an FIR, which is impermissible in law. Thus, the entire criminal prosecution is alleged to be without jurisdiction and in violation of the mandatory statutory scheme.

3.2. Without prejudice to the above submissions, learned advocate Mr. Pandya fairly submitted that the petitioner does not dispute t