Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
In specific cases, only officers of the rank of Assistant Director of Wild Life Preservation or higher are recognized as authorized officers for recording confessions under Section 50(8) ["Rajesh Singh VS State of Bihar - Crimes"].
Analysis and Conclusion:
In the realm of environmental law, the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 (WPA), plays a crucial role in safeguarding India's biodiversity. A common question arises in wildlife crime investigations: whether DFO comes under the authorised officer for recording confession of accused under Wildlife Protection Act. This issue is pivotal because confessional statements can significantly influence case outcomes, but their validity hinges on strict statutory compliance.
This blog post delves into the legal framework, amendments, judicial interpretations, and practical implications. While we provide general insights based on established law and precedents, this is not legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for case-specific guidance.
Generally, the Deputy Conservator of Forests (DFO) does not inherently qualify as an authorised officer for recording confessions under the WPA unless specifically empowered by the State Government or Central Government through relevant provisions and amendments. In Re: Performance Appraisal Reports of the Officers of the Indian Forest Service VS Union of India - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 885Gopi, S/o Govindan VS State Of Kerala - 2023 0 Supreme(Ker) 984
Confessions recorded by unauthorized officers are typically deemed nullities with no legal sanctity, rendering them inadmissible in court. This principle ensures procedural fairness and prevents abuse of power in wildlife enforcement.
The WPA originally lacked explicit details on recording confessional statements, leading to ambiguities. Key changes clarified the scope:
2003 Amendment (Act 16 of 2003): This explicitly limits authority to officers of the rank of Assistant Director of Wild Life Preservation or Assistant Conservator of Forests, authorized by the State Government. These officers can receive and record evidence, including confessions. In Re: Performance Appraisal Reports of the Officers of the Indian Forest Service VS Union of India - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 885Gopi, S/o Govindan VS State Of Kerala - 2023 0 Supreme(Ker) 984
Section 50(8) of the WPA: Reinforces that only duly authorized officers can conduct investigations and record statements. Prior to amendments, lower-ranked officers' recordings were often invalidated by courts. State of Madhya Pradesh VS Uday Singh - 2019 0 Supreme(SC) 355Gopi, S/o Govindan VS State Of Kerala - 2023 0 Supreme(Ker) 984
As noted in judicial analysis, only officers of the rank of Assistant Director or Assistant Conservator of Forests, authorized by the Government, can record confessional statements under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972; confessions by unauthorized officers are nullities. Gopi, S/o Govindan VS State Of Kerala - 2023 0 Supreme(Ker) 984
Indian courts, including the Supreme Court and High Courts, have consistently upheld these restrictions:
In State of MP v. Madhukar Rao (2008), the Supreme Court distinguished officers below Assistant Director or Assistant Conservator ranks, holding their confessions invalid unless specifically authorized. State of Madhya Pradesh VS Uday Singh - 2019 0 Supreme(SC) 355
Narayanan v. State of Kerala (2023) reaffirmed that statements under Section 50(8) by unauthorized officers are inadmissible. Gopi, S/o Govindan VS State Of Kerala - 2023 0 Supreme(Ker) 984
Other cases echo this:- Confessions by Forest Rangers are inadmissible, as they lack empowerment under Section 50(8). For instance, the Investigating Officer herein, who is none other than the Forest Ranger who is not authorised under S.50(8) led to bail grants due to inadmissible evidence. SATHYAN.C vs STATE OF KERALA - 2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 46987CHANDY @ STANLEY, Versus STATE OF KERALA, - 2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 6343
These rulings emphasize verifying officer authorization before relying on confessions.
DFOs hold significant responsibilities in forest management, but their powers under WPA for confessions are not automatic. Authorization varies by state and delegation:
Unless the State Government explicitly notifies DFOs under relevant sections, they fall outside the designated ranks.
Courts have clarified that even higher forest officers require specific empowerment. Only officers of higher rank and pay scale within the Forest Department, specifically authorized, can record CRs and confessions. In Re: Performance Appraisal Reports of the Officers of the Indian Forest Service VS Union of India - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 885
In practice, DFOs may oversee investigations but cannot record confessions validly without gazette notification or order.
Additional precedents reinforce the narrow authority:
Conviction Beyond Confessions: In one case, conviction stood on recovered evidence (e.g., tusks from premises), not solely on Forest Range Officer's confession, highlighting that inadmissible statements do not doom prosecutions if other proof exists. SUDEVAN vs STATE OF KERALA - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 48
Bail Granted on Inadmissibility: Petitioners implicated via unauthorized confessions (e.g., by Forest Rangers) secured Section 438 CrPC bail, with courts noting: The petitioner has been implicated, on the alleged confession made by the first accused... Forest Ranger who is not authorised under S.50(8). SATHYAN.C vs STATE OF KERALA - 2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 46987JINS, Versus STATE OF KERALA, - 2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 30452
Extra-Judicial Confessions: These may be considered separately but must comply with Evidence Act Sections 25-26; however, statutory confessions under WPA demand authorized officers. Kanthaswami VS State of Kerala - 2019 Supreme(Ker) 195
Cases involving Forest Rangers or lower officers consistently invalidate such statements, underscoring the hierarchy.
While the rule is strict, exceptions exist:
Specific State Authorizations: If a State Government notifies DFOs (or equivalents) for confession-recording, their statements may hold. Check state gazettes or notifications.
Higher Ranks in Some Contexts: Principal Chief Conservators or delegated superiors might qualify, but DFOs typically do not without explicit orders. State of Madhya Pradesh VS Uday Singh - 2019 0 Supreme(SC) 355
Absent authorization, confessions remain invalid, as affirmed: any officer below the rank of Assistant Director of Wild Life Preservation or Assistant Conservator of Forests does not have the power to perform acts prescribed under Section 50(8). JINS, Versus STATE OF KERALA, - 2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 30452
Note: Related issues like vehicle confiscation under WPA (Sections 39, 50, 54) follow separate rules and cannot invoke Indian Forest Act provisions interchangeably. Enquiry Officer-Forest Range Officer, Wildlife Wing, Vigilance Section, Wildlife Head Quarters, Directorate of Forest, Bikash Bhawan, Kolkata VS Md. Saheb - 2016 Supreme(Cal) 820
To ensure robust wildlife prosecutions:
Enforcement Agencies: Record confessions only via authorized officers; document notifications clearly.
Courts: Scrutinize authorization before admissibility.
Accused/Defendants: Challenge unauthorized confessions early, potentially aiding bail or acquittals.
Legal Practitioners: Verify officer ranks and state orders; rely on independent evidence like recoveries.
In summary, a DFO typically does not qualify as an authorised officer for recording confessions under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, absent specific government authorization. This stems from amendments, Section 50(8), and precedents like Madhukar Rao and Narayanan. State of Madhya Pradesh VS Uday Singh - 2019 0 Supreme(SC) 355Gopi, S/o Govindan VS State Of Kerala - 2023 0 Supreme(Ker) 984
Key Takeaways:- Authority limited to Assistant Director/Assistant Conservator ranks, duly notified.- Unauthorized confessions = inadmissible nullities.- State-specific checks essential.- Build cases on corroborative evidence.
Stay compliant with WPA to protect wildlife effectively. For tailored advice, reach out to legal experts.
References:- In Re: Performance Appraisal Reports of the Officers of the Indian Forest Service VS Union of India - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 885, Gopi, S/o Govindan VS State Of Kerala - 2023 0 Supreme(Ker) 984, State of Madhya Pradesh VS Uday Singh - 2019 0 Supreme(SC) 355, SUDEVAN vs STATE OF KERALA - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 48, SATHYAN.C vs STATE OF KERALA - 2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 46987, CHANDY @ STANLEY, Versus STATE OF KERALA, - 2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 6343, JINS, Versus STATE OF KERALA, - 2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 30452, Kanthaswami VS State of Kerala - 2019 Supreme(Ker) 195, Enquiry Officer-Forest Range Officer, Wildlife Wing, Vigilance Section, Wildlife Head Quarters, Directorate of Forest, Bikash Bhawan, Kolkata VS Md. Saheb - 2016 Supreme(Cal) 820
#WildlifeProtectionAct, #DFOAuthority, #LegalInsights
The learned Counsel for the petitioners pointed out a very serious anomaly in so far as the investigation and recording of the confession by the Investigating Officer herein, who is none other than the Forest Ranger who is not authorised under Section 50(8) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 neither ... Sub-Sections (8) and (9) of Section 50 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act provides as under....
Since it is found that the confession statement was not recorded by an authorised officer under Section 50(8) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, the same is inadmissible in evidence, no reliance can be given thereto. 11. ... Sub-Sections (8) and (9) of Section 50 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act provides as under: (8) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force....
Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 are under challenge in this revision. 2. ... This is because of the reason that the petitioner herein has been convicted not merely on the basis of the confession made by him to the Forest Range Officer about the commission of the crime. ... such confession in evidence.
Therefore, the petitioner has been implicated, on the alleged confession made by the first accused. 8. Section 50 of the Wild Life Protection Act, reads BAIL APPL. NO. 235 2022 as follows:- 50. ... The learned Counsel for the petitioners pointed out a very serious anomaly insofar as the investigation and recording of the confession by the Investigating Officer herein, who is none other than the Forest Ranger who is not autho....
Therefore, the petitioner has been implicated, on the alleged confession made by the first accused. 8. Section 50 of the Wild Life Protection Act, reads as follows:- 50. ... The learned Counsel for the petitioners pointed out a very serious anomaly insofar as the investigation and recording of the confession by the Investigating Officer herein, who is none other than the Forest Ranger who is not authorised under S.50(8) of the #HL_S....
Therefore, the petitioners have been implicated, on the alleged confession made by the first accused. 8. Section 50 of the Wild Life Protection Act, reads as follows:- 50. ... The learned Counsel for the petitioners pointed out a very serious anomaly insofar as the investigation and recording of the confession by the Investigating Officer herein, who is none other than the Forest Ranger who is not authorised under S.50(8) of the #HL....
Therefore, the petitioner has been implicated, on the alleged confession made by the accused 2 and 3. 8. Section 50 of the Wild Life Protection Act, reads as follows:- 50. ... The learned Counsel for the petitioners pointed out a very serious anomaly insofar as the investigation and recording of the confession by the Investigating Officer herein, who is none other than the Forest Ranger who is not authorised under S....
Therefore, the petitioners have been implicated, on the alleged confession made by the first accused. 8. Section 50 of the Wild Life Protection Act, reads as follows:- 50. ... The learned Counsel for the petitioners pointed out a very serious anomaly insofar as the investigation and recording of the confession by the Investigating Officer herein, who is none other than the Forest Ranger who is not authorised u....
Forest Act or the Wild Life Protection Act or such other officers under any special enactment. ... Accused No.1, 3, 4 and 5 were found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 51 of the Wild Life Protection Act (for short, 'the Act') for the violation of prohibition under Section 9 of the Act. ... Then comes the question as to what would be the legal statu....
, Wild Life Division. ... posted in Wild Life Division, and since there is no attraction of an offence under the Wild Life Protection Act, this particular ... Divisional Forest Officer, Wild Life Division, Hazaribagh-cum-Authorised Officer , (Section – 52 of Indian Forest Act), P.O., P.S. ... It is the case of the petitioner that no offen....
Sub-section (8) of Section 50 of the Wild Life Protection Act makes it clear that only the officers authorised by the law,’ or the Government under the Act, can conduct investigation. If what PW1 stated about is the extra judicial confession made by the 1st accused, that is a different thing, because an extra judicial confession can be made to any person other than a judicial officer subject to the prohibition contained in Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act. If at all PW1 claims the statement to be an extra judicial confession, it must be properly and legally proved as ....
At the same time, any identical provision is not incorporated in the Wild Life Protection Act. Section 51(4) of the Wild Life Protection Act prescribes forfeiture of such properties involved in offences under the Wild Life Protection Act on conviction only. Only on conviction, the said property assumes the status of the property of the Government. Unlike in the case of offences under the Wild Life Protection Act, the property becomes the property of the Government at the time of the seizure itself in the case of forest offences and that is why confiscation proceedings are p....
Similarly, in “Principal Chief Conservator of Forests v. J.K. Johnson” reported in (2011) 10 SCC 794 it is held by the Supreme Court that the property seized under Section 50 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 has to be dealt with by learned Magistrate in accordance with law. It is also held in the said report that the Officer authorised under Section 54 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act 1972 to compound the offences under the said Act, has no power, competence and authority to order forfeiture of the seized articles in connection with the offences suspected to have be....
The Full Bench of this Court after consideration of number of authorities held that the property seized under Section 52 of the Forest Act from the alleged offender cannot be the property of the State unless there is trial and finding reached by the Competent Court that the property seized was used for committing the offence. In that case, the offences were registered under Wild Life Protection Act. 5. The facts of the case of Madhukar Rao (supra), are totally different than the instant case. In that case, the main question for consideration was that whether withdrawal of p....
It will be useful to reproduce here Section 55 of the Act of 1972 for convenience. According to Section 55 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, no court shall take cognizance of any offence against this Act except on the complaint of any person other than those who are mentioned in the said Section. A Forest Range Officer is not authorized to institute the complaint under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
