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…!
Rajesh Singh VS State of Bihar - Crimes
"] ["2005 0 Supreme(UK) 316"].Rajesh Singh VS State of Bihar - Crimes
"] ["2025 0 Supreme(Pat) 225"] ["2024 0 Supreme(Gau) 1510"].Rajesh Singh VS State of Bihar - Crimes
"] ["2024 0 Supreme(Gau) 1510"].In some cases, courts have emphasized that police officers or other authorities cannot initiate proceedings under the Wild Life Act without proper authorization, and any violation of this can lead to quashing of cases ["2014 0 Supreme(Kar) 1124"].
Analysis and Conclusion:
Rajesh Singh VS State of Bihar - Crimes
"].References:- ["2023 0 Supreme(Kar) 463"]- ["2023 0 Supreme(Kar) 943"]- ["2023 0 Supreme(Kar) 301"]- ["
Rajesh Singh VS State of Bihar - Crimes
"]- ["2025 0 Supreme(Pat) 225"]- ["2024 0 Supreme(Gau) 1510"]- ["2014 0 Supreme(Raj) 104"]- ["2014 0 Supreme(Kar) 1124"]
Disclaimer: This article provides general information based on legal precedents and is not a substitute for professional legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for specific cases.
In the realm of , carry significant weight due to their impact on biodiversity and protected species. A common question arises among legal practitioners, forest officials, and accused parties: is file in wild life offences? Typically, this refers to whether additional complaints can supplement an initial filing after it's already before the court under the ().
This blog post delves into the legal position, drawing from key judicial clarifications and procedural guidelines. We'll examine why supplementary complaints are generally not permissible and what alternatives exist for handling new evidence.
A allows prosecutors to add new facts, evidence, or accused persons to an ongoing case after the initial complaint. While common in general criminal matters under the (CrPC), its applicability in specialized laws like the is restricted. In wildlife cases, procedures emphasize strict compliance with to ensure authorized and timely prosecutions.
The governs offences like poaching, illegal trade in wildlife articles, and habitat destruction. is pivotal: No court shall of any offence against this Act on the complaint of any person other than— certain authorized officers or persons who have given a 60-day prior notice. [
#WildlifeLaw, #WLPA1972, #SupplementaryComplaint
Competence of an officer to file the complaint under section 55 of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, is a matter of prime importance. ... Registration of FIR and investigation of offences under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, by police officer Violations of the provisions of the Act are not specified as cognizable offence, therefore, police officers are often unwilling to lodge FIR and investigate offences reported under the provisions ... Once....
.26/2010 on the file of the District and Sessions Judge at Chamarajanagara, seeking to set aside the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below, wherein the petitioners/accused are convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 9 and 39(a) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act (for short ‘Act ... Section 55 deals with cognizance of offences: 55. No court shall take cognizance of any offence against this Act except on the complaint of the Chief Wild L....
It is pertinent to note that in terms of Section 55 of the Wild Life Protection Act, no courts shall take cognizance of any offences against the Act except on the complaint of any person in terms of Section 55 of the Wild Life Protection Act and the same is reproduced for ready reference, which reads ... The prosecution first of all has not proved conscious possession of seizure of 8 horns of stag and 4 horns of wild goat and seizure of the same in terms of Section 50....
But admittedly, none of the prescribed authorities, including the Chief Wild Life Warden, filed the complaint rather it was admittedly filed by the Forest Range Officer, who was also not a competent person to file the complaint. ... person to file the said complaint as under the provisions of section 55 of the WL Act, the complaint ought to have been filed by any of the authorities mentioned in the said section and as per section 55(b) of WL Act, the....
But admittedly, none of the prescribed authorities, including the Chief Wild Life Warden, filed the complaint rather it was admittedly filed by the Forest Range Officer, who was also not a competent person to file the complaint. ... person to file the said complaint as under the provisions of section 55 of the WL Act, the complaint ought to have been filed by any of the authorities mentioned in the said section and as per section 55(b) of WL Act, the....
Subsequently, investigation was transferred to Delhi Wild Life Department to file a complaint against eight persons including the petitioner. On the basis of letter No. ... Even if we compute the date of his arrest from 16.8.2005, even then CBI was supposed to file supplementary complaint within maximum 90 days as is provided under Sec. 167(2), CrPC, however, the supplementary complaint was filed on 23.12.2008 i.e. after the lapse o....
Case No. 04/2023, Under Sections 9/39/51(C) of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. 4. ... The accused was arrested in connection with an wild life offence i.e., trading of a full grown adult Royal Bengal Tiger skin, bones of the tiger viz. ... (Forest) Case No. 02/2023, are arising out of same incident in respect of same nature of offences. Therefore, it is not permissible to file a second FIR on the same facts and incident. He further submits that the impugned FIR being Anini P.S. ... I....
According to the provisions of section 55 of the Act, the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence are not empowered to file a complaint under the Wild Life Protection Act. ... The Range Officer of forest of that range lodged a written complaint with the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Chaibasa, alleging offences against respondents under Section 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. ... It is also placed at serial 14B of Part-II o....
THE WILD LIFE (PROTECTION) ACT, 1972, PENDING ON THE FILE OF XXX ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (30TH ACMM) AT BENGALURU. ... • Once a complaint is filed before the Court, there is no provision for further investigation or submission of a supplementary complaint. ... • Clause 6.45 specifies the competent officer who can file a complaint under Section 55 of the Act. ... • Clause 6.52 mandates that a complaint filed befor....
Shri Sahani (PW12) on being satisfied that the offences as stated above were made out, being the competent authority, filed written complaint in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur on 21.12.2001. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offences. ... On the basis of the material collected during the course of investigation, he filed the complaint in the Court of law. He was authorized, for the reasons stated above, to file the complaint. 30. ... PW7 Chandrapr....
The complaint was registered in the respondent-Police Station in Crime No.9/2019, for the offences punishable under Sections 9 and 51 of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as `Wild Life Act’), Sections 307, 353 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as `IPC’) and under Section 30 of Arms Act, 1959. The motorcar used by the alleged accused was also inspected and it was noticed that in the said car, there was a dead body of a Deer with bullet injury and one more cut head of the Deer, the cut portion/....
The prosecution did not prove that PW4 is a person competent to file complaint under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. “B. The courts below overlooked Section 55 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, according to which no court shall take cognizance of an offence under the Act otherwise than on a complaint of a notified person. Therefore, the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner is illegal and are liable to be set aside.” Therefore, the courts below have committed a grave illegality in taking cognizance of the offence and convicting the petitioners herei....
The opposite party gave reply in writing which was considered by the said Forest Officer. The authorised officer searched the said taxi, seized the birds, arrested the persons who were carrying the birds along with the opposite party and seized the said taxi for violation of the provisions of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. One complaint was filed before the court of learned Magistrate against the opposite party and two others for commission of the offence punishable under Section 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 for violation of the provisions of Sections 9, 39, 44, 48....
Act read with section 200 of Criminal Procedure Code, not much help is seen coming therefrom in order to ascertain existence of prima facie case against the applicant in respect of the allegations made against him. 9. In the instant case, prosecution case appears to be based upon confessional statements of the applicant and his co-accused, the CDRs and some seizures. If one peruses the criminal complaint filed under section 55 of the Wild Life (Protection) Even though, there are allegations made in the complaint that all the accused are involved in the trail and trade of Dh....
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
