9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (3) TMI 900 - HC - Indian LawsMaintainability of Complaint - authorised person to file the complaint - section 50(8) of Wild Life (Protection) Act. - whether officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence are not empowered to file a complaint under the Wild Life (Protection) Act? - HELD THAT - From the perusal of Section 2(d) of the Cr.P.C., it is evident that in a complaint if any allegation against any person is mentioned, with a view to take action against him, he will be deemed as an accused of the complaint. From the definition of complaint it does not appear that only when the name of person is mentioned in the cause title of the complaint, then only that person shall be treated as accused of that complaint. Where there are two distinct offences made up of different ingredients, embargo under Article 20(2) or Section 26 of General Clauses Act, 1897 has no application, though the offences may have some overlapping features. The doctrine of double jeopardy protects a person from being tried and punished twice for the same offence, but not from different offences arising out of violation of different laws by the same set of facts. In the present case, in the complaint it is clearly mentioned that the complainant is duly authorised to file a complaint under Section 55 of the Act. At this stage the averment of the complaint is considered prima facie true. So at this stage it can not be ascertained whether the complainant is authorised by the Government to conduct the investigation of crime under the Act or she is competent to record the statement of the persons under Section 50(8) of the Act and for filing of complaint. It is a matter of fact, which requires evidence to decide - Applicant himself in his statement recorded by complainant Sushri Shraddha Pandre under Section 50(8) of the Act admitted that he was involved in smuggling of red crowned roof turtle, and he purchased the same from co-accused Ajay Singh, which is admissible in evidence against the applicant. Forest official also collected the statement of bank account of Ajay Singh showing that applicant transferred money in his account. So, at this stage it cannot be said that there is no evidence on record to connect the applicant with the crime. The petition filed by the applicant is dismissed with the liberty that applicant is free to raise his objections at appropriate stage, which shall be decided by the trial Court according to law without being influenced by the order passed herein.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of filing a supplementary complaint under the Criminal Procedure Code or Wildlife Protection Act, 1972. 2. Double jeopardy and violation of constitutional rights under Articles 20(2) and 21. 3. Compliance with Section 202 of Cr.P.C. regarding cognizance against persons residing outside territorial jurisdiction. 4. Authorization of the complainant to file the complaint under the Wildlife Protection Act. 5. Admissibility of evidence and connection of the applicant with the crime. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of Filing a Supplementary Complaint: The applicant argued that there is no provision under the Criminal Procedure Code or the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, for filing a supplementary complaint to include additional accused in the same complaint. The court examined the definition of "complaint" under Section 2(d) of the Cr.P.C., which includes any allegation made to a Magistrate with a view to taking action against an accused. The court referenced precedents, including *Mohd. Yousuf v. Smt. Afaq Jahan & Anr.* and *Bhimappa Basappa Bhu Sannavar v. Laxman Shivarayappa Samagouda*, to establish that a complaint does not require a specific format, and the name of the accused in the body of the complaint suffices for taking cognizance. The court found that the applicant was mentioned in the first complaint filed on 11-7-2017, and the supplementary complaint filed on 5-12-2017 did not constitute a fresh complaint but rather an extension of the original one. 2. Double Jeopardy and Violation of Constitutional Rights: The applicant contended that the complaint was a reproduction of cases registered by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) and violated Articles 20(2) and 21 of the Constitution. The court clarified that double jeopardy protects against being tried and punished twice for the same offence but not for different offences arising from the same facts. Citing *State of Bombay v. S.L. Apte & Another* and *State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan*, the court emphasized that the offences under the Wildlife Protection Act and the Customs Act were distinct, with different ingredients and legal provisions. Thus, the doctrine of double jeopardy did not apply. 3. Compliance with Section 202 of Cr.P.C.: The applicant argued that the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) did not comply with Section 202 of Cr.P.C. before taking cognizance against him, as he resided outside the court’s territorial jurisdiction. The court noted that Section 202 requires an inquiry or investigation before summoning an accused residing beyond the jurisdiction. However, the court highlighted that this requirement does not apply when the complaint is filed by a public servant acting in the discharge of official duties, as per Section 200 of Cr.P.C. Since the complaint was filed by a Deputy Conservator of Forest, a public servant, the CJM was not obligated to conduct an inquiry under Section 202. 4. Authorization of the Complainant: The applicant challenged the authority of Sushri Shraddha Pandre, Deputy Conservator of Forest, to file the complaint under the Wildlife Protection Act. The court referred to Section 55 of the Act and the M.P. Rules of 1974, which authorize Chief Wildlife Wardens, Wildlife Wardens, and Forest Range Officers to file complaints. The court noted that the Deputy Conservator of Forest is superior to a Forest Range Officer and produced an order dated 22-8-2006, authorizing all mi oueaMykf/kdkjh to act under Sections 50(6) and 50(8) of the Act. Therefore, the court concluded that the complainant was duly authorized to file the complaint. 5. Admissibility of Evidence and Connection with Crime: The applicant argued that there was no evidence connecting him to the crime, and the statement of co-accused Ajay Singh was inadmissible as it was not recorded in his presence. The court referenced Section 50(8) and (9) of the Act, which allows authorized officers to record evidence admissible in subsequent trials. The court found that the applicant’s statement, recorded under Section 50(8) by the Deputy Conservator of Forest, admitted involvement in smuggling red crowned roof turtles. Additionally, bank statements showed monetary transactions between the applicant and co-accused Ajay Singh. Thus, the court determined there was sufficient evidence to connect the applicant to the crime. Conclusion: The court dismissed the petition, allowing the applicant to raise objections at the appropriate stage during the trial. The proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1648/2017 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sagar, were upheld, and the court emphasized that the applicant's objections would be considered according to the law without being influenced by this order.
|
