1988 (10) TMI 260 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the allegations, set out in the complaint or the charge-sheet do not in law constitute or spell-out any offence and that resort to criminal proceedings would, in the circumstances, amount to an abuse of the process of the court or not? Held that - Appeal allowed. Orders of the High Court set aside and the order of the learned Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence and ordering issue of summons to the respondents is restored. The criminal case initiated on the complaint will now be proceeded with in accordance with law.

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Magistrate under Section 210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2. Merits of the complaint under the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972.
3. Applicability of Section 429 IPC in conjunction with Section 9(1) read with Section 50(1) of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Magistrate under Section 210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:

The High Court quashed the Magistrate's order taking cognizance of the offence under Section 9(1) read with Section 51 of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972, on the grounds that the Magistrate acted contrary to the provisions of Section 210(1) Cr.P.C. The High Court observed that since an investigation by the police was in progress for the same offence, the Magistrate should have stayed the proceedings and called for a report from the police. However, the Supreme Court found this approach unsupportable, noting that cognizance of an offence under the Wild Life Protection Act can only be taken on the complaint of the Chief Wild Life Warden or an authorized officer, as per Section 55 of the Act. Thus, Section 210(1) Cr.P.C. was not applicable as the Magistrate's cognizance was based on a statutory complaint and not a police report.

2. Merits of the complaint under the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972:

The High Court also quashed the proceedings on the merits, stating that the complaint did not constitute an offence as the petitioner was not named in the first information report, and there were no eyewitnesses or identification of the petitioner. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the complaint did spell out the ingredients of the alleged offence. The Court reiterated that the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly and only to prevent abuse of process or to secure the ends of justice. The Court emphasized that the High Court should not embark on an inquiry into the sufficiency of evidence at the stage of taking cognizance. The allegations in the complaint were sufficient to constitute an offence under the Wild Life Protection Act, and the High Court's intervention was premature.

3. Applicability of Section 429 IPC in conjunction with Section 9(1) read with Section 50(1) of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972:

The respondents contended that the offence under Section 9(1) read with Section 50(1) of the Wild Life Protection Act was the same as the offence under Section 429 IPC, and since the police had filed a final report stating no offence was made out under Section 429 IPC, fresh proceedings under the Wild Life Protection Act were impermissible. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, noting that Section 56 of the Wild Life Protection Act allows for prosecution under other laws as well, provided there is no double punishment for the same offence. The Court clarified that the ingredients of the offences under Section 9(1) of the Wild Life Protection Act and Section 429 IPC are distinct, and thus, prosecution under both provisions is permissible.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's orders quashing the proceedings, and restored the Magistrate's order taking cognizance of the offence and issuing summons to the respondents. The criminal case initiated on the complaint will now proceed in accordance with the law.

← Previous Next →