Order

17/02/2025

1. By way of filing the instant miscellaneous petition, a challenge is made to the very lodging of the report dated 08.12.2024 in the form of a First Information Report (FIR)

before the Department of Forest.

2. Heard learned counsels present for the parties and gone through the materials available on record.

3. The second part of the First Schedule appended to the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), classifies offences based on their bailability and whether they are cognizable or non-cognizable. Notably, the Indian Forest Act, 1927, does not expressly designate whether the offences punishable under its provisions are bailable, non-bailable, cognizable, or non-cognizable. In the absence of explicit classification under the special statute, the general principles of the Cr.P.C. will govern the determination of these aspects. Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act prescribe a maximum punishment of six months' imprisonment. As per Part II of the First Schedule to the Cr.P.C., an offence punishable with imprisonment for less than three years is deemed to be non- cognizable and bailable unless specifically stated otherwise in the enactment. Therefore, by operation of law, offences under Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act are bailable and non-cognizable.

4. Section 154 of Cr.P.C. mandates the registration of an FIR only in cases where the information relates to a cognizable offence. As the offences under Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act do not fall within the category of cognizable offences, the lodging of the impugned FIR is not legally sustainable. In a similar matter adjudicated by this High Court in Abdul Sattar v. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 7213/2022, decided on

06.02.2025), it was observed that:

“As per Part II of the First Schedule of the CrPC, if an offence is punishable with imprisonment for less than three years, it shall be classified as non-cognizable and bailable, unless specified otherwise in the enactment itself. Since both Section 15(3) of the 1956 Act and Section 17(4) of the 1970 Act prescribe a maximum punishment of one year, these offences, by operation of law, fall within the category of non-cognizable and bailable offences.

Applicability of Sections 154 and 155 of CrPC With this determination, the procedural requirements under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, must be examined. 1. Section 154(1) of the CrPC mandates that an officer in charge of a police station shall register an FIR only when the information relates to a cognizable offence. Since the offences in the present case are non-cognizable, the very foundation of the FIR becomes questionable.

The provision reads as follows-

154. Information in cognizable cases (1) Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer in charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the informant; and every such such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf

2. Section 155 of the CrPC prescribes that in the case of a non-cognizable offence, the police officer shall enter the information in a separate register prescribed by the Government and refer the informant to the Magistrate. The police are not authorized to investigate such an offence without obtaining prior approval from a Magistrate having jurisdiction.

The statutory provision is reproduced below-

155. Information as to non-cognizable cases and investigation of such cases (1) When information is given to an officer in charge of a police station of the commission within the limits of such station of a non-cognizable offence, he shall enter or cause to be entered the substance of the information in a book to be kept by such office