This petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. praying

to enlarge the petitioner/accused on bail in the event of his

arrest in FOC No.51/2020-21 (Case No.05/2020-21) registered

by

Deputy

Range

Forest

Officer,

Gauribidanur

Range,

Gauribidanur now pending in PCR No.56/2020 on the file of

Principal Civil Judge & JMFC., Gauribidarnur, for the offences

punishable under Sections 2, 9, 50 read with 51 of the Wild Life

(Protection) Act, 1972.

2.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader

appearing for the respondent/State.

3.

This matter was heard and reserved on 10.01.2022.

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

3

and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for

the respondent-State and considering the factual aspects of the

case, it is the case of the prosecution that the respondent 3

Deputy Range Forest Officer, Gauribidanur Range, detected the

crime on 08.07.2020 at Hakki-Pikki Colony, Kurudi beat, Hosur

Hobli, Gauribidanur Range. The respondent recovered three

number monitor lizard and three number gray francolin, in the

house of petitioner - Ramesh in the said colony. The respondent

being a public servant under Section 59 of the Wild Life

(Protection) Act, 1972 has filed a complaint under Section 55(b)

read with Section 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and

the said case is numbered as PCR No.56/2020-21. The Trial

Court took the cognizance of the said offence and registered a

case and issued summons to the accused vide order dated

15.07.2020 and fixed the date of appearance on 05.10.2020 of

this petitioner. The accused was served with summons and

appeared through his counsel and also sought for exemption by

filing application under Section 205 of Cr.P.C., instead of Section

317 of Cr.P.C., which was allowed by the Trial Court, yet, the

accused remained absent on 06.10.2021. Hence, NBW had been

4

issued against the accused from time to time. Hence, the

petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present

petition.

4.

The main contention of the petitioner before this

Court is that no prima facie case is made out against the

petitioner and the very search conducted by the complainant is

not in accordance with Section 50(8) of the Wild Life (Protection)

Act, 1972. As per the complaint without a search warrant the

complainant based on some information allegedly searched the

house of petitioner and conducted seizure under Mahazar and

the very seizure itself is doubtful. The learned Magistrate ought

not to have issued notice to the petitioner and committed an

error in taking cognizance. It is also contended that there is no

any direct evidence and also the alleged lizard had kept in the

vegetable crate outside the house and not inside the house and

the very procedure adopted by the respondent by filing a private

complaint based on the seizure done under a Mahazar and

without any independent witness creates a doubt about the

veracity of the seizure. The Sessions Judge ought to have

5

admitted the petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., instead

of rejecting the same. Hence, it requires an interference of this

Court.

5.

Per contra, the learned High Court Government

Pleader appearing for the State would submit that the very

petition itself is not maintainable and the private complaint is

filed under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., as envisaged under Section

55(b) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 read with Section

51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. The respondent being

a public servant under Section 59 of the Wild Life (Protection)

Act, 1972 empowered to file a complaint and the complaint is

also filed in terms of the special enactment. Learned High Court

Government Pleader also would submit that the learned

Magistrate having considered the contents of the complaint and

looking into the material took the cognizance and issued the

summons. The petitioner also appeared through his counsel by

filing a nec