BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 23/11/2023 CORAM The Hon'ble Mr.Justice G.ILANGOVAN Crl.OP(MD)No.17680 of 2023 and Crl.MP(MD)No.14001 of 2023 Mr.R.Alex Pandi : Petitioner/Sole Accused Vs.

State, Rep. by the Forest Range Officer, Forest Range Office, Madurai.

(WLOR No.1 of 2023) : Respondent/Complainant PRAYER:-Criminal Original Petition has been filed under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records pertaining to CC No.670 of 2023 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Magistrate Court No.VI, Madurai and quash the same as illegal and pass such further orders.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Vasanth for Mr.S.Rajasekar For Respondent : Mr.M.Vaikkam Karunanithi Government Advocate (Criminal side)

O R D E R

This criminal original petition has been filed seeking quashment of the case in CC No.670 of 2023 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai.

2.The facts in brief:-

On 10/01/2023 inspection was made by the Forest officials. At that time, they found the petitioner alleged to have installed life wire fencing to his property situated in Survey No.88/2 measuring about 03.50 Acres for protection by drawing electricity illegally from the free service scheme introduced for farmers. On the basis of the above said occurrence, occurrence report was filed and a case was registered in WLOR No.1 of 2023. After completing the investigation, final report has been filed and it was taken cognizance in CC No.670 of 2023 by the Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai, for the offences under sections 2(1), 2(12-b), 2(14), 2(15), 2(16-b), 2(35), 2(36), 2(37), 9, 39, 50, 51 and 56 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 .

3.Seeking quashment of the same, this petition has been filed stating that none of the allegations mentioned in the complaint attract any of the ingredients of the offences mentioned alleged against him.

4.Heard both sides.

5.Section 9 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 reads as under:-

'9.Prohibition of Hunting.-No person shall hunt any wild animal specified in Schedules I, II, III and IV, except as provided under section 11 and section 12.”

6.Now word 'hunting' is defined in section 2(16) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 reads as under:-

“2(16)”hunting”, with its grammatical variations and cognate expressions, includes.-

(a)killing or poisoning of any wild animal or captive animal and every attempt to do so;

(b)capturing, coursing, snaring, trapping, driving or baiting any wild or captive animal and every attempt to do so;

(c)injuring or destroying or taking any part of the body of any such animal or, in the case of wild birds or reptiles, damaging the eggs of such birds or reptiles, or disturbing the eggs or nests of such birds or reptiles.”

7.By pointing out this definition clause, the petitioner would submit that absolutely, it is not a case of hunting. But it is a case of protecting the property from invasion of animals; His aim was to protect the property and not hunting of animals.

8.No doubt that there was no intention on the part of the petitioner to hunt any animals. But having known that if live electric wire fencing is made, there is every likelihood of danger not only to the human life, but also animals. Whether the act on the part of the petitioner will attract the offence punishable under section 9 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act is a debatable one.

9.No doubt that there was no causality. The intention on the part of the petitioner is not to hunt the animals. But however, naturally the petitioner has to proceed for violation of the conditions to supply the electricity.

10.On a question raised by this court, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would rely upon the notification issued by the Government in exercising of the power conferred in sub-section (1) of 64 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1952, wherein installation of power fencing has been dealt.

10.Section 3 of the Rules reads as under:-

“3.Application for permission to erect power fence and for Certificate of R