Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
J.SREENIVAS RAO
Kolichelimi Sai Rohit – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petition filed to quash por under wlp act and ipc. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. parties present differing views on the authority to investigate. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. court analyzed authority and jurisdiction of forest officials regarding ipc. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. writ petition allowed in part; ipc proceedings quashed. (Para 13 , 14) |
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
Forest officials lack jurisdiction to investigate IPC offences; investigations must be conducted by police under the law.
Criminal proceedings cannot commence without a valid complaint as required by Section 55 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, rendering any prosecution based solely on a FIR legally unsustainable.
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....
The main legal point established in this judgment is that procedural irregularities and violations of the Wildlife Crime Investigation Handbook can lead to the quashing of proceedings in a criminal c....
Hunting of Rabbit – To attract violation of Section 9 of WL Act, it must be shown that a wild animal specified and detailed in schedules I, II, III and IV has been hunted.
The prosecution must prove unauthorized entry and destruction of wildlife habitat beyond reasonable doubt for conviction under the Wildlife (Protection) Act.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
