The judgment establishes the admissibility of confessional statements made to Forest Officers and emphasizes the importance of protecting wild life, highlighting the need to interpret and apply the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 in a manner that preserves and conserves India's animal wealth.

For hunting and killing a wild animal (a bison) in a forest area, the respondents were convicted by the trial Magistrate, but were acquitted by the Sessions Court in appeal. The Forest Range Officer, who instituted the prosecution, has presented this appeal with special leave against the said acquittal. Hunting of wild animals is prohibited under S. 9 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (for short 'the Act'). The trial Magistrate who convicted the two respondents under S. 5.1 of the Act sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for six months and a fine of Rs. 500/- each being the minimum sentence prescribed under the Act. The Sessions Judge who set aside the conviction and sentence was disinclined to rely on the evidence of the prosecution and hence the acquittal.

2. The facts revealed in the prosecution evidence, in short, are these : The three accused in the trial Court are brothers. They engage themselves in poaching as a past-time and also for profit-making. They have a gun and other accessories necessary for poaching. During the middle of February, 1985 they went into the vested (reserved ?) forest at Munderi (in Nilambur range) and sighted a bison and shot it down. They extracted its meat and sold it in open bazaar. The remaining carcass was buried in the ground. On receipt of some unauthentic information about the incident, the forest officials went to the house of the accused. As the first accused was absent in the house then, the Range Officer interrogated the respondents (who were the second and third accused in the trial Court). They admitted that the bison was shot dead by them and its flesh was sold in open market. The respondents pointed out the spot where they buried the carcass of the animal which included its skull and horns.

3. The Chief Judicial Magistrate who tried the case relied on two statements (Exts. P3 and P4) containing the confession made by the respondents before the Range Officer. However, the Chief Judicial Magistrate acquitted the first accused and convicted the other two accused (respondents) for the aforesaid offence. The Sessions Judge found that the prosecution has not been instituted by a person authorised by the State Government as required in S. 55 of the Act. He also found that the confessional statements cannot be relied on.

4. Section 55 of the Act says that "no Court shall take cognizance of any offence against this Act except on the complaint of the Chief Wild Life Warden or such other officer as the State Government may authorise in this behalf". The complaint in this case was filed by the Forest Range Officer. By notification dated 1-2-1975 the Kerala Government has authorised "officers of the Forest Department of the State not below the rank of Range Officers and Assistant Wild Life Preservation Officers" (Vide Kerala Gazette No. 10, Part-I dt. 11-3-1975 - Notification No. 6211/FM3/75/AD). Even though the said notification was not marked as an exhibit in evidence, Court can take judicial notice of it. (Vide Assistant Collector of C. E. v. Vasanthakumar, 1988 (1) Ker LT 92 : (1988 Cri LJ 1217).) Therefore the view of the learned Sessions Judge regarding the competence of the complainant cannot be sustained.

5. Prosecution examined only three witnesses, all of whom are officials of the Forest Department, who claimed to have gone to the respondents' house on 21-2-1985 and heard the statements made by them. The officials were present when the skull and horns were disinterred from the place spotted out by the respondents. Section 9(2) of the Act contains the prohibition that "no person shall hunt any wild animal specified in Sch II, Sch. III or Sch. IV, except under and in accordance with the conditions specified in a licence granted under sub-section (5)". Bison is included among the list of animals enumerated in Schedule II. Both the trial Magistrate and the Sessions Judge accepted the prosecution evidence regarding the identity of the skull and horns as those of a biso