O R D E R

The petitioner is the 3rd accused in C.C.No.59/2019 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II (Forest Offences), Manjeri. The petitioner is a Government servant working as Tahsildar in Land Revenue Department and the offences alleged against him are punishable under Section 2(16), 9, 39, 50 and 52 of Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 read with Section 51 of the Act of 1972.

2. The allegation against the petitioner is that, the petitioner while working as Tahsildar, Ponnani Taluk, in response to a request made by the Village Officer, Alangode Village, who is the 1st accused in the above crime, gave an oral permission to cut down the branches of the trees in the premises of the said Village Office. The 1st accused, who in turn engaged the 2nd accused to execute the said work. Accordingly, on 08.09.2018, the workers of the 2nd accused cut the branches of different types of trees standing in the premises of Alangode Village Office at Changaramkulam junction falling under Kalikavu Forest Range in Nilambur South Division. While doing so, it caused damage to nest and eggs of birds and also caused death of hatchlings of Little Cormorant (Neer Kakka) and Pond Heron (Kokku), which are falling under Schedule IV of the Kerala Wild Life Protection Act, 1972.

3. Based on the said incident, O.R.No.11 of 2018 of Kalikavu Forest Range was registered by the 3rd respondent and after completing the investigation, Annexure-A4 final report was submitted, implicating the petitioner herein and the two other persons. The Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II (Forest Offences), Manjeri, took cognizance of the same and it is now pending as C.C.No.59 of 2019. This Crl MC is filed for an order quashing all further proceedings in the said case.

4. Heard Sri.P.Vijayabhanu, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners and Sri.Sudheer Gopalakrishnan, learned Public Prosecutor for the State.

5. Even though, several contentions have been raised in the Crl.M.C, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner basically raised the question regarding the requirement of sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. It was pointed out that even going by the averments contained in Annexure-A4, it is an admitted case that the branches which were cut and removed, were that of the trees standing in the compound of the Village Office, which is a public property. There is also no dispute that the same was done in discharge of their official duties. In such circumstances, before taking cognizance of the said offence, sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C ought to have been obtained. In the absence of such sanction, the action of taking cognizance of the said action by the learned Magistrate is erroneous and hence this is a fit case in which powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C has to be invoked.

6. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor would oppose the said prayer by pointing out that the question whether the acts alleged against the petitioner were committed in discharge of official duty is a question of fact and it cannot be decided in this proceeding. Hence the learned Public Prosecutor sought for dismissal of the Crl.M.C.

7. The only question that arises is whether it was proper to take cognizance of the offences alleged against the petitioner without obtaining sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. Section

197(1) reads as follows:

“(1) When any person who is or was a Judge or Magistrate or a public servant not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Government is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty, no Court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction-

(a) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of the Union, of the Central Government;

(b) in the case of a person who is employed or, as the