9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 900X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ist of IUCN. It is also placed at serial 14B of Part-II of Schedule I appended to the Wild Life (Protection) Act. Forest officials posted at Regional Tiger Strike Force, Sagar apprehended co-accused Azad and on the information of Azad they raided the house of co-accused Nandlal and seized 300 gram (50 pieces) of scales of Pangolin from the house of Nandlal and registered P.O.R. No. 28060/02 for the offence punishable under Sections 2, 9, 39, 44, 48A, 49B, 51, 52 of the Act and investigated the matter. During investigation, forest officials arrested many other co-accused persons. On 10-6-2017 they arrested co-accused Ajay Singh and Sushri Shraddha Pandre, Deputy Conservator of Forest/In-Charge of Tiger Strike Force, Sagar recorded his statement under Section 50(8) of the Act. From his statement it was revealed that he was involved in transportation and smuggling of red crowned roof turtles, exclusively found in Chambal river. It was also learnt that co-accused Ajay Singh had business dealings with applicant Thameem Ansari and he was confined in Central Jail, Chennai in connection with DRI Crime No. 27/2017 under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962. So, Sushri Shraddha Pandre arrest ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sagar in P.O.R. No. 18060/2002 against Nandlal, Azad, Ajay, Sampatiya, Mannimannyan, Khokon, Sanil, Ajay, Irfan, Shailendra, Sultan, Khoka, and Mishrilal. On that complaint Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sagar took cognizance against them for the offences punishable under Sections 2, 9, 39, 44, 48A, 49B, 51, 52 of the Act and registered Criminal Case No. 1648/2017. Thereafter for the same offence she again filed a supplementary complaint against co-accused Kamal and Vijay on 21-7-2017 and against applicant Thameem Ansari on 5-12-2017. While there is no provision under the Criminal Procedure Code or Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 for filing a supplementary complaint to bring in any other person as an accused in the same complaint. So complaint is not maintainable against applicant. In this regard Learned Counsel placed reliance on a judgment of Karnataka High Court passed in the case of Ajit Narain Haksar & Others v. Assistant Commissioner, 2001 (78) ECC 326 = 2016 (334) E.L.T. 25 (Kar.) and the judgment of Delhi High Court passed in the case of A. Nagrajan v. State, 2012 SCC OnLine Del 1574. 5. Learned Counsel further submitted that from the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble because the same is filed by an unauthorised person. 8. Learned Counsel further submitted that there is no evidence on record to connect the applicant with the crime. Forest officials only on the basis of the statement of co-accused Ajay Singh recorded under Section 50(8) of the Act implicated applicant in the crime. While the statement of co-accused Ajay Singh was not recorded in the presence of applicant, so the same is not admissible against the present applicant. There is no other incriminating evidence against the applicant on record to connect the applicant with the crime. Learned trial Court wrongly took cognizance against the applicant. On the strength of aforesaid submissions, Learned Counsel prayed that the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1648/2017 pending before the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sagar so far as it relates to applicant Thameem Ansari be quashed. 9. Learned Counsel for the respondent/State opposed the prayer and submitted that Sushri Shraddha Pandre, Deputy Conservator of Forest/In-Charge of Regional Tiger Strike Force, Sagar is duly authorised by the State Government to conduct the investigation and for filing the complaint for the o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under this Code, that some person, whether known or unknown, has committed an offence, but does not include a police report. 12. 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. 13. In the case of Mohd. Yousuf v. Smt. Afaq Jahan & Anr. - 2006 Cri.L.J. 788 (Supreme Court), the Apex Court opined that there is no particular format of a complaint. A petition addressed to the Magistrate containing allegations that the offence has been committed and ending with a prayer that the culprits be suitably dealt with, can be treated as a complaint. Apex Court in the case of Bhimappa Basappa Bhu Sannavar v. Laxman Shivarayappa Samagouda, AIR 1970 S.C. 1153, observed that "The word 'complaint' has a wide meaning since it includes even an oral ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cant as an accused and prayed for the Court to take cognizance against him. So these judgments do not help the applicant. 17. 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. 18. The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court while dealing with the issue of double jeopardy under Article 20(2), in the case of The State of Bombay v. S.L. Apte & Another, AIR 1961 S.C. 578 held "If, therefore the offences were distinct there is no question of the rule as to double jeopardy as embodied in Art. 20(2) of the Constitution being applicable. The next point to be considered is as regards the scope of Section 26 of the General Clauses Act. Though Section 26 in its opening words refers to "the act or omission constituting an offence under two or more enactments", the emphasis is not on the facts alleged in the two ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nizance of offences : "55. No court shall take cognizance of any offence against this Act except on the complaint of the Chief WildLife Warden or such other officer as the State Government may authorise in this behalf." 13. What emerges from a perusal of these provisions is that cognizance of an offence under the "Act" can be taken by a court only on the complaint of the officer mentioned in Section 55. The person who lodged complaint dated 23-6-1986 claimed to be such an officer. In these circumstances even if the jurisdictional police purported to register a case for an alleged offence against the Act, Section 210(1) would not be attracted having regard to the position that cognizance of such an offence can only be taken on the complaint of the officer mentioned in that section. Even where a Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence instituted otherwise than on a police report and an investigation by the police is in progress in relation to same offence, the two cases do not lose their separate identity. The section seeks to obviate the anomalies that might arise from taking cognizance of the same offence more than once. But, where, as here, cognizance can be taken ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... strate that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction, he shall enquire into the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by a police officer or by such other person as he thinks fit, for finding out whether or not there was sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. But where the complaint is filed by the public servant acting or purporting to act in discharge of his official duties, the question of holding inquiry may not arise. The provisions of Section 200 of Cr.P.C. are very clear on that point in which it is mentioned that when the complaint is made in writing, the Magistrate need not examine the complainant and the witnesses - if a public servant acting or - purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties or a Court has made the complaint. In this case also the complaint was filed by the complainant Sushri Shraddha Pandre, Deputy Conservator of Forest/In-Charge of Regional Tiger Strike Force, Sagar (A public servant) in acting or - purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties. So it was not obligatory for the CJM that before summoning the accused residing beyond his jurisdiction either to inquire into the case b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll have the powers, for purposes of making investigation into any offence against any provision of this Act, - (a) to issue a search warrant; (b) to enforce the attendance of witnesses; (c) to compel the discovery and production of documents and material objects; and (d) to receive and record evidence. (9) Any evidence recorded under clause (d) of sub-section (8) shall be admissible in any subsequent trial before a Magistrate provided that it has been taken in the presence of the accused person." 26. Which shows that Deputy Conservator of Forest, authorised by the State Government in this behalf shall have the powers, for purposes of making investigation into any offence against any provision of the Act and also empowered to record the statement of an accused. Learned Government advocate also produced the copy of order dated 22-8-2006 issued by the Chief Wild Life Warden whereby all mi oueaMykf/kdkjh are authorised to act under Section 50(6) and 50(8) of the Act. The investigation of the crime has been conducted by Sushri Shraddha Pandre, Deputy Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
