The Forest squad conducted a raid on the petitioner's

restaurant, wherein, the petitioner was found to be in possession

of the Black Corals in the aquarium belonging to him. The

Range Forest Officer, Chikkamagaluru, registered the FIR against

the petitioner-accused for the offences punishable under

Sections 2(a), 9, 39, 44, 48(a), 51 and 57 of the Wildlife

Protection Act, 1972. Taking exception of the same, this petition

is filed.

2.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused

submits that, the FIR registered against the petitioner is on the

basis of the raid conducted by the forest squad, wherein, it is

alleged that the petitioner is alleged to be in possession of the

Black Corals without license and it is an offence punishable

under the Provisions of Wildlife Protection Act, 1972. Hence, he

submits that the registration of the FIR on the basis of the raid

conducted by the forest squad who is not the competent

3

authority as specified under Section 50 (1) and (8) of the Wildlife

Protection Act, is, one without authority of law.

3.

On the other hand, learned HCGP appearing for the

respondent-State submits that the petitioner was found to be in

possession of the Black Corals without licence and as such has

committed the aforesaid offences and the registration of the FIR

against the petitioner cannot be interfered with and sought for

dismissal of the petition.

4.

I have examined the submissions made by the

learned counsel appearing for the parties.

5.

Section 50 of the Wildlife Protection Act, specifies

that, the Director or any other officer authorised by him in this

behalf or the Chief Assistant Conservator of Forests or the

authorised officer or any forest officer or any police officer not

below the rank of a sub-inspector, may, if he has reasonable

grounds for believing that any person has committed an offence

against the Act can seize any captive animal, wild animal, animal

article, meat, trophy or uncured trophy, or any specified plant or

4

part or derivative thereof, in respect of which an offence against

this Act appears to have been committed in possession of any

person.

6.

In the present case, the forest squad which is not an

authority as specified under Section 50(1) (a) of the Wildlife

Protection Act has seized the Black Corals which was alleged to

be in possession of the petitioner-accused. Hence, the seizure of

the black Corals alleged to be in possession of the petitioner-

accused is one without authority of law and consequently the

registration of the FIR on the basis of the said seizure stands

vitiated.

7.

Accordingly, I pass the following:

ORDER

i)

The Criminal petition is allowed

ii)

The impugned FIR in FOC No.1/2019-20 registered

by the Range Forest Officer, Chickamagaluru is here by quashed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

HR