Forest officials lack jurisdiction to investigate IPC offences; investigations must be conducted by police under the law.

ORDER :

1. This Writ Petition has been filed seeking a writ of certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the Preliminary Offence Report (POR) bearing S. No. 4/2022, dated 28-03-2022, registered on the file of the Mannanur Range, Amarabad Division, Nagarkurnool District, against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 27 and 56 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (for short ‘WLP Act’) and Sections 351 read with 332 and 333 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) as being illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional, more particularly in violation of Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequently to quash the same.

2. Brief facts of the case:

2.1. On 27.03.2022, at about 1:10 a.m., one Turpinti Raheem, while he is on duty at Base Camp, Check Post reported that a few persons, under the influence of alcohol, had attacked him and informed the same to his superior officers through phone. The Forest Department personnel requested him and others to act as panchas, to which they agreed, and accordingly proceeded to Durvasula Check Post, near the outskirts of Mannanur Village, which falls within a Tiger Conservation Wildlife Protection Zone. At that time, the check post was closed. A car bearing No.AP 09 CC 9708 was found at the spot with accused persons, who were under the influence of alcohol, and they stated that they came from Hyderabad. Though all vehicles are stopped at the Mannanur Check Post after 9:00 p.m., the accused claimed that they have crossed the check post at about 10:15 p.m. and had dinner at Mannanur Village, and returned to the spot. On further enquiry, the complainant stated that the accused persons came to the check post at about 1:00 a.m., threatened him to open the gate, and, upon his refusal, assaulted him with their hands. Fearing for his safety, he ran away and informed the incident to the superior officers, who later reached the scene. Basing on the same, preliminary offence report was prepared under Form-A, for the offences under Sections 27 and 56 of the WLP Act and Sections 351 read with 332 and 333 of the IPC.

3. Heard Mr.Naraparaju Avaneesh, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Forests appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1, 3, 4 and 5 and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of respondent No.2.

4. Submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners

4.1. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioners have not committed any offence and they have been falsely implicated in the present case as accused. Even according to the allegations made in the complaint or the panchanama dated 27.03.2022, the ingredients of the alleged offences are not attracted against them. He further submitted that the forest officials have no authority or jurisdiction to conduct an investigation in respect of offences under the provisions of the IPC and they are entitled to conduct investigation in respect of offences under the provisions of WLP Act. Hence, continuation of the proceedings insofar as penal offences under Sections 351 r/w 332 and 333 of the IPC is liable to be quashed.

4.2. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the judgments of the High Court of Chhattisgarh in State of Chhattisgarh v. Ishan Yadav and others , 2001 (3) MPLJ 272, High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Anand Kumar Goenka v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others , 2019 SCC OnLine Ch 55 and High Court of Karnataka in D. Manjunath and others v. State of Karnataka , Crl. Pet. No. 8051 of 2013 dated 19.03.2019.

5. Submissions of the learned Government Pleader for Forests

5.1. Learned Government Plead