Advocates:
['R D HAJARE', '', 'KALYANI M JOSHI', 'APP']

20BA353.22+354.22.odt

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

CRIMINAL

APPLICATION (BA)

NO. 353/2022

Shridas Baliram Kadate and others..Versus...State of Maharashtra

CRIMINAL

APPLICATION (BA)

NO. 354/2022

Yogesh Lalshyam Todase @ Diwakar Lalshyam Todase and others..Versus...State

of Maharashtra

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- -

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,

Court's or Judge's orders

appearances, Court's orders or directions

and Registrar's orders

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----- ------------ -

Mr. R.D.Hajare & Mrs. K. Joshi Advocates for applicant.

Mr. I.J.Damle, APP for Non-applicant/State

CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.

DATE : 05/05/2022

1]

Heard Mr. Hajare and Mrs. Joshi, learned counsel

for the applicants and Mr. Damle, learned APP for non-

applicant/State.

2]

The applicants are arraigned for the offence

under Sections 2(16), 2(31), 9, 39, 44, 49(B), 50 & 51 of the

Wildlife (Protection) Act in Crime No. 4927/123151.

3]

The incident is dated 9.9.2021. The arrest is on

11.9.2021. The charge-sheet has been filed on 2.11.2021.

4]

Mr.Hajare and Mrs. Joshi, learned counsel for the

applicants contends that entire prosecution is vitiated on

account of there being non-complaince with the requirement

20BA353.22+354.22.odt

2

of Section 50(8) of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, inasmuch as,

the entire investigation has been conducted by the RFO, who

has also been instrumental in the seizure and recording of

statements. They submit that such power is vested only with

an officer not below the rank of an Assistant Director of

Wildlife or the officer not below the rank of Assistant

Conservator of Forest, authorized by the State Government in

this behalf. They therefore submit that since the entire

investigation is over and the charge-sheet has been filed, the

applicants be released on bail on such terms as may be

deemed fit and proper.

4]

Mr. Damle, learned APP opposes the application

and submits that the conducting of the investigation and

recording of the statements by the RFO would merely be an

irregularity which is curable and considering that there is a

seizure from the applicants, the applications needs to be

rejected.

5]

The incident is dated 9.9.2021, when upon

having received secret information that some persons were

trading in the body parts of a tiger near Borkhedi Toll Naka,

on Chandrapur-Nagpur Highway, a trap was arranged and at

about 9.30 p.m., the applicants were arrested at the spot while

selling body parts i.e. claws/nails and whiskers of tiger.

Seizure memo was prepared and upon investigation being

20BA353.22+354.22.odt

3

completed, the charge-sheet came to be filed.

6]

A perusal of Section 50(1) of the Wildlife

(Protection) Act, 1972, indicates that the power of entry

search, arrest and detention is with the Director or any other

officer authorized by him or the Chief Wild Life Warden or any

other officer authorized by them in this behalf, as indicated

therein. Mr. Damle, learned APP has been unable to point out

any authorization in the RFO who has conducted the

investigation. So also Section 50(8) of the said Act, permits

that an Assistant Director of Wild Life Preservation or an

officer not below the rank of Assistant Conservator of Forests

authorized by the State Government in this behalf, would be

the person who shall have the powers for making investigation

into any offence against any provisions of the Wildlife

(Protection) Act, 1972. Admittedly, the investigation has been

conducted by