The court ruled that complaints under the Wild Life Protection Act must be filed by authorized officers, and failure to obtain necessary permissions for investigation invalidates the proceedings.

ORAL ORDER

In this petition, the petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:

"(a) Issue appropriate writ or order or direction quashing the Wildlife Offence Report No.03/2023 registered by the Girinagar Police Station, submitted through PCR No.5607/2023 dated 21.08.2023 for the offence punishable under Sections 9 , 39, 40, 48A, 49B, 50, 51, 55(B) of WLP Act, 1972; registered the case having taken cognizance in CC No.20971/2023 against the petitioner before the Learned Court of the XXXII ACMM at Bengaluru on 21.08.2023 (vide Annexure-A1).

(b) Pass/issue such other needy directions/orders in favour of the Petitioner under the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity."

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondents and perused the material on record.

3. In addition, reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition, learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to Section 51 of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 in order to point out that the offences alleged against the petitioner under Section 9 , 39, 40, 48A, 49B, 50, 51, 55(B) of Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 are non-cognizable offences, since punishment is less than three years in terms of schedule to the Criminal Procedure Code and consequently in the absence of necessary permission from the Magistrate, the respondents were not entitled to conduct investigation by registering a FIR and impugned proceedings deserves to be quashed.

4. It is also pointed out that under Section 55 of Wild Life Protection Act, it is only the competent officer who is entitled to file a complaint for the purpose of taking cognizance, in the absence of which, the Trial Court was not justified in taking cognizance of the offences pursuant to the complaint dated 21.08.2023 in PCR No.8607/2023 filed by the respondent No.2/Sub-Inspector of Police who is not a competent officer within the meaning of Section 55 of Wild Life Protection Act. It is therefore submitted that the impugned proceedings deserves to be quashed.

5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader submits that there is no merit in this petition and the same is liable to the dismissed.

6. A perusal of the offences alleged against the petitioner read with Section 51 of the Wild Life Protection Act, will clearly indicate that all the offences are punishable with a sentence of three years which is treated as non-cognizable offence within the meaning of Schedule - I of Part (2) of Criminal Procedure Code . It follows there from that necessary permission ought to have been obtained by the respondent under Section 155(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code prior to conducting investigation and proceeding further in the matter, in the absence of which, as held by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case ofVaggeppa Gurulinga Jangaligi (Jangalagi) Vs. The State of Karnataka, through PSI, Kagwad Police Station, Belagavi - ILR 2020 KAR 630, the impugned proceedings deserves to be quashed.

7. I also find considerable force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent No.2/ Inspector of Police is not a competent officer within the meaning of Section 55 of Wild Life Protection Act which reads as under:

"Section 55. Cognizance of offence - No court shall take cognizance of any offence against this Act on the complaint of any person other than-

(a) the Director of Wild Life Preservation or any other officer authorized 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