9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 900X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o, Sushri Shraddha Pandre arrested applicant Thameem Ansari on 11-10-2017 in the present case. Applicant Thameem Ansari disclosed in his statements to the competent Forest Authority under Section 50(8) of the Act that in the year 2014, he came in contact with a person named Benty in Sri Lanka. He told him that there is a great demand of turtles in Hong Kong and Malaysia. He also showed photographs of turtles found in India on Internet and face-book and thereafter he contacted co-accused Ajay Singh, who delivered him such turtles. He purchased 450 turtles of three different varieties including expensive red crowned roof turtles for a sum of ₹ 3 lacs. These turtles were transported in the Month of September, 2016 in his Car No. TN-38-AC-300 from Agra to Chennai. These turtles were to be sent from Tuticorin to Sri Lanka, however the DRI seized those turtles and he was arrested along with his agent. After being released on bail, he expanded his network and came in contact with co-accused persons namely Manivannan and Sanil and traded in rare turtles. In August, 2017 Officers of DRI seized 2500 live turtles from the house of his agent Venkatesh and he was again arrested. On that S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r submitted that from the complaint it does not appear that applicant Thameem Ansari committed any new offence. The complaint is based only on the evidence collected against him by the DRI officials in DRI crime No. DRI/CZU/TTN/VIII/48/13/INT/l/16 and DRI/CZU/ VIII/48/Enq-l/INT/27/17 registered in Tamil Nadu. No fresh evidence is collected by the officials of Tiger Strike Force, Sagar against the applicant. The present case is the exact reproduction of the cases registered by the officials of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, against the applicant, which is clearly in violation of constitutional right of the applicant provided under Articles 20(2) and 21 of the Constitution of India. In this regard he also placed reliance on a judgment passed by Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. The Central Bureau of Investigation Another, 2013 (6) SCC 348. 6. Learned Counsel further submitted that when complaint is filed against a person who does not reside within the territorial jurisdiction of the concerned Court, before taking cognizance against that person the Magistrate is bound to follow the procedure as stipulated in Section 202 of Cr.P.C. While in this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laint for the offences punishable under the Act, so it cannot be said that the complaint has been filed by an unauthorised person. He further submitted that the said complaint has been filed by a public servant Sushri Shraddha Pandre, Deputy Conservator of Forest, acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties, hence there was no need to comply with provisions of Section 202 of the Cr.P.C. Applicant smuggled the red crowned roof turtles, which were taken by him from co-accused Ajay Singh, who collected those turtles from the Eco System of Chambal and applicant also came to M.P to collect those turtles. The offences registered by the officers of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) are different from the instant case. The officers of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) filed complaints against the applicant under Section 135 of the Customs Act and not under the Wild Life (Protection) Act. 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. It is further submitted that complainant Sushri Shraddha Pandre, Deputy Conservat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oral allegation. It may, therefore, be assumed that no form is prescribed which the complaint must take. It may only be said that there must be an allegation which prima facie discloses the commission of an offence with the necessary facts for the Magistrate to take action . 14. From the definition of the word complaint and above pronouncement of Hon ble Apex Court it is apparent that if name of accused and the basis of its acquisition is mentioned in the body of complaint, there is no effect of not mentioning his name in the cause title of the complaint. He will be deemed to be an accused for that complaint and Court can take cognizance against him even his name is not mentioned in the cause title of the complaint. 15. If we see the averment of the first complaint filed by complainant Sushri Shraddha Pande, Deputy Conservator of Forest and In-Charge of Regional Tiger Strike Force Sagar on 11-7-2017 before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sagar in connection with P.O.R. No. 28060/2002. In para-5 of that first complaint it is mentioned that applicant was also involved in the smuggling of red crowned roof turtle. He had bought red crowned roof turtle from co-accused Ajay Singh. Eve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... but rather on the ingredients which constitute the two offences with which a person is charged. This is made clear by the concluding portion of the Section which refers to shall not be liable to be punished twice for the same offence . If the offences are not the same but are distinct, the ban imposed by this provision also cannot be invoked. 19. In the case of State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan, (1988) 4 SCC 655 in a similar situation where the allegations on the accused/respondents were that he on 8-6-1986 at 02:00 p.m. along with two others named in the complaint, shot and killed an elephant in Compartment No. 13 of the Kundurugutu Range Forest and removed the ivory tusks of the elephant. 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. The Learned Magistrate took cognisance of this offence and ordered issue of process to the accused and at the Police Station, Sonua, a case was registered under Sections 447, 429 and 379 IPC read with Sections 54 and 39 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 for the same act, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is no scope or occasion for taking cognizance more than once and, accordingly, Section 210 has no role to play. The view taken by the High Court on the footing of Section 210 is unsupportable. 20. In this case also the crime No. DRI/CZU/VIII/48/Enq-l/INT/27/ 17 was registered against the applicant under Section 104(6) read with 135 of Customs Act for the act of illegally keeping 2515 Indian Star Tortoise, which are listed in Schedule IV of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and illegally attempting to export the Indian Star Tortoise and also smuggling out the same to Sri Lanka. The officers of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) did not register the crime under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. While this case has been registered against the applicant for purchasing and transporting the red crowned roof turtles from the Eco System of the river Chambal under Sections 2, 9, 39, 44, 48A, 49B, 51, 52 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. Hence, mere initiation of proceedings by the officials of DRI for illegally keeping the 2515 of Indian Star Tortoise, which are listed in Schedule IV of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and illegally attempting to export the Ind ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the cases of Birla Corporation Ltd. v. Adventz Investments and Holdings Ltd. Others (supra) and National Bank of Oman v. Barakara Abdul Aziz Another (supra) are clearly distinguishable on the facts because in both the cases complaint was filed by the private person not by the public servant acting or - purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties. So these judgments do not assist the applicant. 23. The M.P Rules of 1974 are framed pursuant to Section 55 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. Rule 55 of the M.P Rules of 1974 reads thus : 55. Cognizance of offences. - The following officers shall be authorised to make complaints under Section 55, namely :- (a) Chief Wild Life Warden; (b) Wild Life Wardens; (c) Forest Range Officers. 24. Since the State of Madhya Pradesh by framing the Rules of 1974 has authorized Chief Wild Life Warden; Wild Life Wardens; and Forest Range Officers to file the complaint and Deputy Conservator of Forest who filed the complaint is superior to the rank of Forest Range Officers. 25. The provisions contained in Section 50(8)(d) and Section 50(9) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act read as follows : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. 27. 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. So proceedings of Criminal Case No. 1648/2017 pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sagar cannot be quashed at this stage. 28. Criminal Case No. 1648/2017 is fixed for before charge evidence. During before charge evidence the applicant has the opportunity to cross-examine the complainant and raise all his objections at the stage of charge argument. 29. Hence, petition filed by the applicant is dismissed with th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
