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 of any offence against the Act except on the complaint of specific authorized officers.

ORDER :

By way of this petition, petitioner has prayed for quashing of FIR No. 138 dated 23.08.2018, under Section 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, registered at Police Station Karsog, District Mandi, H.P. and further proceedings of Police Challan No. 45/2019 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Karsog, District Mandi, H.P.

2. The contention of petitioner is that FIR No.138 dated 23.08.2018 was registered at Police Station Karsog for commission of offence under Section 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (for short “Act”) and on completion of investigation report under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed and the case is pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Karsog. According to petitioner, the procedure adopted by respondent is impermissible in law, in view of specific bar under Section 55 of the Act.

3. In response, the factual position has not been denied by the respondents. The factum of registration of FIR for offence under Section 51 of the Act and submission of report under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. has been admitted. It is submitted that under Section 55(b) of the Act, prosecution could be launched by any officer authorised by the State Government. It is further submitted that the State Government has authorised all police officers above the rank of Sub-Inspectors to file complaint in accordance with law in respect of offence punishable under Section 51 of the Act. As per respondent, since, Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is also attracted, as such submission of report under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. is not bad in law.

4. I have heard Mr. G.R. Palsra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Desh Raj Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondent and have also gone through the record carefully.

5. Section 55 of the Act reads as under:-

“55. Cognizance of offences.—No court shall take cognizance of any offence against this Act except on the complaint of any person other than—

(a) the Director of Wild Life Preservation or any other officer authorised in this behalf by the Central Government; or

(aa) the Member-Secretary, Central Zoo Authority in matters relating to violation of the provisions of Chapter IVA; or

(ab) Member-Secretary, Tiger Conservation Authority; or

(ac) Director of the concerned tiger reserve; or

(b) the Chief Wild Life Warden, or any other officer authorised in this behalf by the State Government [subject to such conditions as may be specified by that Government]; or

(bb) the officer-in-charge of the zoo in respect of violation of provisions of section 38J; or

(c) any person who has given notice of not less than sixty days, in the manner prescribed, of the alleged offence and of his intention to make a complaint to the Central Government or the State Government or the officer authorised as aforesaid.”

6. The question arises whether the prosecution for offence under Section 51 of the Act could be launched by submission of report under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C., in view of prohibitory bar created by Section 55 of the Act?

7. In State of Bihar vs. Murad Ali Khan and others, reported in (1988)4 SCC 655, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with an identical question has held as under:-

“13. What emerges from a perusal of these provisions is that cognizance of an offence under the "Act" can be taken by a Court only on the complaint of the officer mentioned in Sec. 55. The person who lodged complaint dated 23.6.86 claimed to be such an officer. In these circumstances even if the jurisdictional police purported to register a case for an alleged offence against the Act, Sec. 210 (1) would not be attracted having regard to the position that cognizance of such an offence can only be taken on the complaint of the officer mentioned in that section. Even where a Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence instituted otherwise than on a police-report and an investigation by the police is in progress in relation to same offence, the two ca