Police Can Investigate Wildlife Act Offences, Quashing Plea Dismissed: J&K&L High Court

Jammu : The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has clarified that police officers are empowered to investigate offences under the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972. The ruling came in a judgment dismissing a petition seeking to quash an FIR registered under the Wildlife Protection Act and the Arms Act.

The petitioner, Arjun Balraj Mehta, had approached the court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) seeking the quashment of FIR No. 15/2016 registered at Police Station Leh. The FIR alleged commission of offences punishable under Section 8/51 of the Wildlife Protection Act and Section 07/27 of the Arms Act.

Background of the Case

According to the petitioner, a national-level shooter, he was in Ladakh for a vacation in April 2016 with his licensed gun for repair by an Army officer friend. He claimed he was falsely implicated by unknown persons while on a ride near the Magnetic Hill area. He alleged he was assaulted by locals who wrongly accused him of poaching, and subsequently, the police registered an FIR against him under local influence instead of acting on his complaint.

The respondents, the UT of Ladakh and the SHO, PS Leh, presented a different narrative. They submitted that a written complaint from the Wildlife Warden, Leh, reported that wildlife officials on an anti-poaching tour near Magnetic Hill observed persons poaching Ladakhi Urial (wild sheep) with a telescopic gun. They alleged three persons were present, including one in civilian dress (later identified as the petitioner) with a telescopic rifle, and two in army uniform. They claimed shots were fired at the Urials, and officials seized a telescopic rifle, three live cartridges, ammunition, and an army vehicle used in the alleged act. Subsequent investigation reportedly recovered blood-stained animal fur and stones from the scene. Based on witness statements and recoveries, the petitioner and an army official were arrested. The seized rifle was found to be licensed to the petitioner and a ballistic report confirmed it was in working condition and matched a fired cartridge. The investigation concluded that the petitioner committed offences under both the Wildlife Protection Act and the Arms Act, and a charge-sheet was being prepared.

Arguments Presented

The petitioner's counsel argued for quashing the FIR on several grounds: the allegations were absurd and improbable, no dead animal was recovered, a Chief Judicial Magistrate order granting bail suggested no Wildlife Act violation, cognizance of a Wildlife Act offence can only be taken by a court on a complaint by a Wildlife Authority and not police investigation, and the process was being misused for harassment.

Conversely, the counsel for the respondents contended that the investigation had sufficiently proved the offences and the charge-sheet was ready. They argued that the plea regarding cognizance was premature and could be raised before the trial court after the charge-sheet is filed. Crucially, they argued that the non-recovery of a dead animal is a factual issue for trial, and even an attempt to kill is an offence. Citing the Supreme Court judgment in Moti Lal vs CBI (2002) and an advisory from the Wildlife Crime Control Bureau, they asserted that police officers are indeed empowered to investigate offences under the Wildlife Protection Act.

Court's Analysis and Decision

The Bench of HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MA CHOWDHARY carefully considered the arguments and the record. The court placed significant reliance on the Supreme Court's decision in Moti Lal vs CBI , quoting:

> "The scheme of Section 50 of the Wildlife Act makes it abundantly clear that Police Officer is also empowered to investigate the offences and search and seize the offending articles. For trial of offences, Code of Criminal procedure is required to be followed and for that there is no other specific provision to the contrary. Special procedure prescribed is limited for taking cognizance of the offence as well as powers are given to other officers mentioned in Section 50 for inspection, arrest, search and seizure as well of recording statement"

Based on this precedent, the court dismissed the petitioner's argument that police investigation into Wildlife Act offences was invalid.

The court also addressed the petitioner's contention regarding the non-recovery of a dead animal, stating that "even an attempt to kill is also an offence and otherwise also, this shall be a factual matter to be considered during the trial."

Regarding the argument about the court's power to take cognizance based on a police report versus a complaint by a Wildlife Authority, the court deemed this plea "premature" as the charge-sheet was yet to be filed before the competent court. The petitioner would have the right to raise this and other pleas before the trial court at the appropriate stage.

Finding no merit in the grounds raised for quashing the FIR under Section 482 CrPC, the court dismissed the petition. The interim direction, if any, was vacated.

The judgment, pronounced on February 12, 2024, clarifies the police's role in investigating wildlife crimes and underscores that certain procedural objections regarding cognizance are best addressed before the trial court after the investigation is complete.