JUDGMENT

Ravindra Maithani, J. - The instant revision is directed against the followings:-

(i) Judgment and order dated 04.10.2013 passed in Criminal Case No. 42 of 2013, State v. Babu passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar (for short, the case ), by which the revisionist has been convicted under Section 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (for short, the Act ) and sentenced thereunder; and

(ii) Judgment and order dated 09.05.2019 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 234 of 2013, Babu v. State of Uttarakhand, passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Udham Singh Nagar (for short, the appeal), by which the judgment and order dated 04.10.2013 passed in the case has been confirmed.

2. Facts necessary for disposal of the instant revision, briefly stated, are that on 23.06.2006, a police party was on the patrolling duty, when they suspected the revisionist and apprehended him. 15 tortoises were recovered from his possession, which he had kept in a bag. Based on it, an FIR was lodged and investigation carried out and a challani report was submitted before the Court. Based on the challani report, the cognizance was taken. After furnishing copies of the police documents, on 17.08.2006 charge under Section 39 read with 51 of the Act was framed against the revisionist, to which he denied and claimed the trial.

3. The prosecution in all examined four witnesses, namely, P.W. 1 Sub Inspector Abul Kalam, P.W. 2 Head Constable Chandrapal Singh, P.W. 3 Head Constable Chani Ram and P.W. 4 Constable Nain Singh.

4. The revisionist was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( the Code ).

5. After hearing the parties, by the impugned judgment and order dated 04.10.2013, the revisionist was convicted and sentenced, as stated hereinbefore. The appeal preferred against it also stood dismissed. Aggrieved by it, the instant revision.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. Learned counsel for the revisionist would submit that in the instant case compliance of Section 50(4) of the Act has not been made, which vitiates the entire trial. It is also argued that the complainant has not been examined; all the witnesses are police personnels, which makes the case doubtful.

8. Learned counsel for the revisionist would also argue that there is a violation of mandatory provision of the Act in the instant case because the cognizance of the offence under the Act could have been taken on a complaint as required under Section 55 of the Act, but in the instant case, it is argued, that the cognizance has been taken on a challani report, which is bad in the eyes of law and it vitiates the entire trial. Therefore, the revisionist deserves to be acquitted on this ground alone.

9. On behalf of the State, learned counsel would submit that if an FIR is lodged under the provision of the Act, investigation may be carried out and even if a complaint is not filed, it will not make any difference.

10. This is a criminal revision. The scope of criminal revision is much restricted to the scope of examining correctness, legality and propriety of any finding, sentence or order, etc. In the case of Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander & another,2012 9 SCC 469, the Hon ble Supreme Court observed "revisional jurisdiction can be invoked where the decisions under challenge are grossly erroneous, there is no compliance with the provisions of law, the finding recorded is based on no evidence, material evidence is ignored or judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or perversely. These are not exhaustive classes, but are merely indicative. Each case would have to be determined on its own merits" .

11. In so far as non-examination of public witnesses are concerned, this may not be a ground in the instant revision to make any interference. Even if the complainant is not examined, it will have less bearing. In the instant case, after recovery an FIR was lodged and after investigat