H.N. Sarma, J.

1. This Criminal Petition is directed challenging the legality and validity of the Offence Report dated 30.6.2009 submitted by the Forest Ranger cum Investigating Officer, the respondent No. 2 herein, as well as the orders dated 24.7.2009 and 27.8.2009 by which the learned CJM(K) has issued summon to the accused in connection with Case No. 2973C/2009 under Sections 40/44/49/9/39/42 read with Section 2(16)(C) and 2(11) and Section 57 of the Wild Life (Protection Act), 1972.

2. Heard Mr. A.K. Goswami, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. K. Munir, the learned Addl. P.P., Assam.

3. The brief facts necessary for disposal of this petition inter alia are that on 25.3.2009 at about 4 p.m. a few forest officials fed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Guwahati Wild Life Division appeared in the business premises of the petitioner located at Manipuri Basti, Guwahati and searched the premise. During search certain articles were seized by the respondent No. 2 and the seizure list was prepared by him listing the articles so seized. Thereafter by notice dated 27.3.2009 issued under Rule 52 of the Assam Wild Life Protection Rules, 1927 and Section 39(1) of the Wild life (Protection) Amendment Act, 1996 the petitioner was called upon to produce his legality of proof in original of the animal articles/forest produce seized by the Seizing Officer from his business premises on 26.9.2009 under Section 50 of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972, within 10 days from the date of issuance of notice. Upon receipt of the said notice the petitioner prayed for time to reply due to his illness Thereafter subsequent notices dated 8.4.2009 and 12.4.2009 were also issued with similar directions by the respondent No. 2 Upon receipt of said notice dated 12.5.2009 the petitioner raised a preliminary objection on 29.5.2009 stating that the said notice is not validly issued as the same was not issued by the seizing officer, the respondent No. 2 but was issued by the DFO, Guwahati Wild Life Division and such a notice is required to be issued under Rule 52 by the seizing Officer only. Accordingly the petitioner did not reply on merit of the said notice and prayed for a decision on the issue so raised by him. In the meantime, the petitioner by filing WP(C) No. 2926/2009 challenged the legality and validity of the said notice dated 12.5.2009 wherein an interim order was passed by the writ court on 29.7.2009 not to take any penal action pursuant to the said notice, in the meantime. However, thereafter, the authorized officer, the respondent No. 2 filed an offence report in the form of complaint in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, Guwahati, dated 30.6.2009 which was received in the office of the CJM on 24.7.2009. The said complaint was registered as CR Case No. 2973/2009 and the learned CJM vide order dated 24.7.2009 directed to issue summon to the petitioner, fixing 27.8.2009. On 27.8.2009 the summon not having returned after service, it was directed to be re-issued fixing 23.9.2009. At this stage, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing this petition for quashing of the aforesaid complaint case including summon issued to him. In the complaint filed by the investigating officer, the respondent No. 2, it is alleged as follows:

On 25th March, 2009 at about 4.00 p.m., (on the basis of the information received from a team of Income Tax, Officials Unit 1(I), NER Guwahati) I, Sri Dilip Kalita, Forest Ranger Guwahati Wild Life Division, in presence of Divisional Forest Officer, Guwahati Wild Life Division and Divisional Forest Officer, H/Qtr. O/o. the Chief Conservator of Forests, Wild Life, Assam, Basistha, Guwahati - 29 have seized some Wild Life belonging to the parts of schedules I, II, III & IV animals as enlisted in Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. The seizure list is enclosed herewith as Annexure I.

On the arrival of the Forest Officials, the Income Tax Team shown the animal articles recovered from t