ivil Appeal Nos
527  528 of 1986
From the Judgment and Order dated 1271985 of the Delhi High Court in LPA No 8 of 1978
GL Sanghi KC Dua SK Mehta Dhruv Mehta SM Sarin and RJ Goulay for the Appellants
VM Tarkunde NP EC Agarwal Atul Sharma and Vijay Pandita for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by JAGANNATHA SHETTY J
These two appeals by leave are from the judgment of the Delhi High Court dated l2 July 1985 in LP No 8 of 1978
The first appellant in the first appeal is the Delhi Water Supply and Sewage Disposal Undertaking the Undertaking The appellants in the next appeal are some of the Executive Engineers in the Undertaking
The common case of the appellants is that the inter se seniority In the cadre of Executive Engineers after their regularisation should reflect the corresponding rankings in the feeding cadre of Assistant Engineers
But the contesting respondents PG NO 636 who are also Executive Engineers contend to the contrary
There case is that the continuous officiation in the post till regularisation should be the basis for determining the seniority
These rival contentions are required to be decided in the appeals
The facts leading to the appeals are not in dispute and may briefly be stated thus The Municipal administration of the Union Territory of Delhi is governed by an Act called the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act the Act
The Act came into force on 7 April 1958
Section 92 of the act provides power to the Undertaking to appoint certain categories of officers
But that power is not absolute
No appointment to any category of A  post shall be made except after consultation with the Union Public Service Commission the Commission
That is the constraint in section 9
Such consultation however is not required if the appointment is for a period not exceeding one year or to such ministerial posts as may be specified in consultation with the Commission
The consultation with the Commission is required to he made in accordance with the regulation framed under Section 97
The Regulation framed by the Commission has a long title called The Union Public Service Commission Consultation by Delhi Municipal Corporation Regulation 1959
It provides procedure for promotion as well as direct recruitment of officers in the Corporation
Section 98 confers power to the Corporation to make regulations with regard to conditions of service of officers and other employees appointed by the Corporation and other incidental matters
Section 4802 states that no Regulation made by the Corporation shall have effect until it has been approved by the Central Government and published in the Official Gazette
Section 480 1 gives interim power to the Central Government to make regulation which the Corporation could have made under Section 98
In exercise of the power under Section 4801 the Central Government has framed what is termed as the Delhi Municipal Corporation Service Regulation 1959
In 1964 four additional posts of Executive Engineers were created in the Undertaking
The Commissioner after considering the eligibility and suitability of the Assistant Engineers then available in the Undertaking recommended three names JP Gupta Mahbood Hussain and RK Kashyap for being appointed as Executive Engineers
He also intimated that there was nothing in record against PG NO 637 those officers
On 17 April 1964 they were appointed as Executive Engineers for a period of one year or till the posts are filled up in consultation with the Commission
These are respondents 1 to 3 in CANo 52786
Shri SS Ramrakhyani Respondent 4 and PT Gurnani Respondent 6 were not then in the Undertaking
They were working as Assistant Engineers in the general wing of the Corporation
It appears they were selected as Executive Engineers in the Undertaking on 9 April 1965
They reported as Executive Engineers in the Undertaking on 12 April 1965 after they were relied from the general wing of the Corporation
They were also appointed for one year in the first instance
On 5 February 1969 their lien was cancelled in the general wing
They were however given the benefit of their service rendered as Assistant Engineers for all purposes
The other respondents were also appointed on ad hoc basis on like terms on different dates
section Parkash respondent No 5 was appointed on 21 August 1965
AV Panat respondent No 7 was appointed on 21 December 1965
Respondents Nos 10 and 11 in 1966 respondent 12 in 1967 and respondents 8 and 9 were appointed in 1969
They worked continuously in their respective posts till their services were regularised by the Commission
The Commission
The Commission regularised their services with effect from 8 January 1971
The list of names of officers whose services were regularised by the Commission evidently did not reflect their inter se seniority in the cadre
The Commissioner therefore was asked to prepare their seniority list
But there is nothing on record indicate that the Commission did anything of the kind
He however appears to have followed the seniority in the cadre of Assistant Engineers for the purpose of posting the Executive Engineers on current duty charge of the post of Superintendent Engineers
Some of the officers thereupon moved the High Court with Writ Petition No 2371973 seeking a direction to the Undertaking to prepare a proper seniority list of Executive Engineers
The High Court accepted the Writ Petition and directed the Undertaking to prepare a seniority list of Executive Engineers Civil
Accordingly the Undertaking prepared a seniority list
The services rendered on ad hoc appointments were excluded for the purpose
The seniority was determined reflecting the respective rankings in the feeding cadre
The aggrieved officials challenged the validitY of that seniority list before the Delhi High Court in CW No 1339 of 1973
The PG NO 638 learned single judge before whom the Writ Petition came for disposal dismissed the same
He held that Rule 6 of the Delhi Administration Seniority Rules 1965 would govern the determination of seniority of the officers
He also held that that seniority should be in the order of regularisation and not on the basis of original ad hoc appointments
But the Division Bench upon appeal took a different view
The learned judges held that the determination of seniority of officers is not governed by any statutory rule and continuous officiation in the post should be the basis
To be more specific the learned judges observed The normal rule is that seniority is governed by the period of continuous officiating service in the absence of any other seniority rule
The period of continuous officiating in the case of the present petitioners will therefore be the governing principle
 xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx The reason we have found is that the delay in making recruitment rules and making regular appointment in accordance with the procedure envisages by the Act really been the result of a conflict between the Corporation and the Union Public Service Commission
In the result for years on the persons have continued on an ad hoc basis
This has happened even in cases where the appointment was not on ad hoc basis initially
In such cases the period of continuous ad hoc service cannot be treated as a stop gap arrangement
This is infact a regular appointment which is held in abeyance because the recruitment rules were not settled and the procedure not finalised
These appointments have eventually been regularised after the recruitment rules had been settled and the procedure laid down
 The correctness of the view taken by the High Court has been challenged in these appeals
We have heard the counsel on both sides and examined the various contentions carefully
The first question for consideration is whether the Delhi Municipal Corporation Service Regulation 1959 is applicable to employees of the Undertaking
As earlier noticed the Regulation was framed by the Government of lndia under Section 4801 of the Act
Regulation 3 provides PG NO 639 3
Unless otherwise provided in the Act or these regulations these regulations shall apply to all Municipal Officers and other Municipal employees whose pay is chargeable to the General Account of the Municipal Fund Provided that nothing in these regulations shall apply to such Municipal Officers and other municipal employees as are appointed under any contract or render part time service or are in receipt of daily wages
 As is obvious significantly from Regulation 3 the regulations shall apply only to Municipal Officers and other Municipal employees whose pay is chargeable to the General Account of the Municipal Fund
Section 99 of the Act provides for establishment of the Municipal Fund
It consists of three different accounts i Electric Supply Account ii Water Supply and Sewage Disposal Accounts and iii General Account
General Account is only one of the three accounts
The Undertaking has a separate account of its own
It is called Water Supply and Sewage Disposal Accounts
It is said that the income and expenditure or the accounts of the Undertaking is separate from and independent of the General Account of the Municipal Fund
OP Kalkar Deputy Commissioner Water in his affidavit filed in CA No 5271986 has also expressly stated so
The salary of the employees in the Undertaking is paid out of the account of the Undertaking and not from the General Account  of the Municipal fund
The Service Regulation 1959 do not apply to those who are paid out of other accounts
It applies only to those who are paid out of General Account
 In view of the stand taken by the undertaking and also in the light of the said provisions of the Act it must be held that the Service Regulation 1959 has no application to the category of officers with whom we are concerned in these appeals
It was however argued for the appellants that the officer memorandum of the Home Ministry of the Government of India dated 22 December 1959 could be called into aid for the purpose of determining the seniority of officers in the PG NO 640 Undertaking
Reference was made to General Principle 5i with the Explanatory memorandum thereunder which directs that where promotion is made on the basis of selection by Departmental Promotion Committee the seniority of such promotes shall be in the order in which they are recommended for such promotion by the Committee
But there is hardly any substance in this contention too
It is basically faulty
The office memorandum proprio vigore does not apply to employees of the Undertaking
It could be applied if it could fall within the scope of Rules as defined in Regulation 1959
Since Service Regulation 1959 itself is not attracted to employees of the Undertaking it would be futile to contend that the office memorandum would govern their seniority
The real question to be considered is what should happen to the valuable service rendered by officers in ad hoc appointments Should it be excluded altogether while determining their seniority
If not what should be the method to be employed in the absence of any rule or order providing for any procedure
It was argued that since the Commission regularised the services of all Executive Engineers with effect from a common date ie 8 January 1971 the inter se seniority in the lower cadre should be the proper basis in the higher cadre also
As otherwise it was urged that a senior in the lower cadre might be junior in the higher cadre which would be contrary to all concepts in service jurisprudence
In this context we were referred to a large number of authorities on either side
Most of the authorities involved the question of applicability of the quota rule linked up with the seniority of direct recruits and promotes
We are not concerned with that question
We may however refer to some of the decisions which have some bearing on the question before us In Baleshwar Dass  Ors etc
V State of UP 1981 1 SCR 449 at 469 Krishna Iyer J had this say If a public servant services for a decade with distinction in a post known to be not a casual vacancy but a regular post known to be not a casual vacancy but a regular post experimentally or otherwise kept as temporary under the time honoured classification can it be that his long officiation turns to ashes like a Dead Sea fruit because of a label and his counterpart equal in all functional respects but with ten years less of service steals a march over him because his recruitment is to a temporary vacancy We cannot anathematize officiation unless there are reasonable differentiations and limitations PG NO 641 xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx The normal rule consistent with equity is that officiating service even before confirmation in service has relevancy to seniority if eventually no infirmities in the way of confirmation exists
We see nothing in the scheme of the Rules contrary to that principle
Therefore the point from which service has to be counted is the commencement of the officiating service of the Assistant Engineers who might not have secured permanent appointments in the beginning and in that sense may still be temporary but who for all other purposes have been regularised and are fit to be absorbed into permanent posts as and when they are vacant In A Janardhan vs Union of India    DA Desai J said At 960 It is a well recognised principle of service jurisprudence that any rule of seniority has to satisfy the test of equality of opportunity in public service as enshrined in Article 16
It is an equally well recognised canon of service jurisprudence that in the absence of any other valid rule for determining inter se seniority of members belonging to the same service the rule continuous officiation or the length of service or the date of entering in service and continuous uninterrupted service thereafter would be valid and would satisfy the tests of Article 16 In GP Doval vs Chief Secretary Government of UP  Ors  Desai J following Baleshwar Dass reiterated at 85 87 Now if there was no binding rule of seniority it is well settled that length of continuous officiation prescribes a valid principle of seniority
The question is from what date the service is to be reckoned It was urged that any appointment of a stop gap nature or pending the selection by Public Service Commission cannot be taken into account for reckoning seniority
In other words it was urged that to be in the cadre and to enjoy place in the PG NO 642 seniority list the service rendered in a substantive capacity can alone be taken into consideration
We find it difficult to accept this bald and wide submission
Each case will depend upon its facts and circumstances
If a stop gap appointment is made and the appointee appears before the Public Service Commission when the latter proceeds to select the candidates and is selected we see no justification for ignoring his past service
At any rate there is no justification for two persons selected in the same manner being differently treated
That becomes crystal clear from the place assigned in the seniority list to petitioner No 1 in relation to respondent No 7
In fact if once a person appointed in a stop gap arrangement is confirmed in his post by proper selection his past service has to be given credit and he has to be assigned seniority accordingly unless a rule to the contrary is made
That has not been done in the case of all the petitioners
The error is apparent in the case of petitioner and respondent No 7
These errors can be multiplied but we consider it unnecessary to do so
In fact a fair rule of seniority should ordinarily take into account the past service if the stop gap arrangement is followed by confirmation
This view which we are taking is borne out by the decision of this Court in Baleshwar Dass and Ors
vs State of UP and Ors
xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx It is thus well settled that where officiating appointment is followed by confirmation unless a contrary rule is shown the service rendered as officiating appointment cannot be ignored for reckoning length of continuous officiation for determining the place in the seniority list
Again in GS Lamba v Union of India  DesaI J likewise commented at 459 60 In the absence of any other valid principle of seniority it is well established that the continuous officiation in the cadre grade of service will provide a valid principle of seniority
The seniority lists having not been prepared on this principle are liable to be quashed and set aside
 PG NO 643 Counsel for appellants however placed strong reliance on the decision in Ashok Gulati and Ors
vs BS Jain and Ors  and in particular the following observations of Sen J at 438 That in the absence of any other valid principle of seniority the inter se seniority between direct recruits and promotes should as far as possible be determined by the length of continuous service whether temporary or permanent in a particular grade or post this should exclude periods for which an appointment is held in a purely stop gap or fortuitous arrangement
No doubt there are certain observations in the two cases of GP Doval  and Narender Chadha  which seems to run counter to the view we have taken but these decisions turned on their own peculiar facts and are therefore clearly distinguishable and they do not lay down any rule of universal application
 We do not consider that this observation is of any assistance to the appellants in this case
It must be read in the context in which it appears and against the background of the facts of that case
It has been said more often and we repeat here that the judgments of Courts or observations made thereon are not to be read as statutes
They are made in the setting of facts obtained in a particular case
It is no exception in Ashok Gulati case
There this Court was concerned with the service rendered by certain officers in a purely stop gap or fortuitous arrangement
In the Public Works Department of the State of Haryana certain persons were appointed as temporarily engineers ad hoc for a period of six months
Some of them were drawn from the Employment Exchange
The appointment was not made in accordance with the cadre rules of the department
In the order of appointment given to each individual it was specified that their appointment was purely on ad hoc basis on a fixed salary of Rs 400  allowances
It was also notified that their services would be terminable without notice
It was further stated that the service rendered would not enure to their benefit under the cadre rules
Later on those posts were advertised by the Public Service Commission for regular recruitment
Some of those persons applied and were also selected
They were appointed regularly in the cadre
Then they claimed that their antecedent service in the ad hoc appointment should be taken into consideration for determining their seniority
This Court said No The reason was obvious
The terms of their ad hoc appointment did not allow them any benefit therefrom
It was a stop gap arrangement contrary to the cadre rules
PG NO 644 They were therefore not entitled to count that service for determining the seniority
If it were allowed to them it would have impaired the rights of persons ranked above them in the merit list of the Public Service Commission
It was in that context the learned Judge made the aforesaid observation
It was not intended to be a discordant note against the normal rule of determining seniority as laid down in Baleshwar Dass case
In fact the learned judge in a later decision in GC Gupta vs NK Pandey  has approved the rule laid down i in Baleshwar Dass vs State of UP ii NK Chauhan vs State of Gujarat  and iii section B Patwardhan vs State of Maharashtra  It has been consistently held in these cases that in the absence of seniority rule the continuous officiation in the post should be the guiding factor for determining the seniority
In a more recent decision in Vasant Kumar Jaiswal vs State of MP Sabyasachi Mukherji J has also reiterated the same principle
The learned Judge said that in the absence of any statutory rule or executive memorandum or order for determination of seniority in a grade the normal rule would be to determine the seniority on the basis of length in service
Our attention was drawn to the decision of this Court in Dr SD Choudhury vs State of Assam in support of the contention that the order in which the Commission regularised the services of the Engineers should be the basis for determining their seniority
In that case the appellants and respondent Nos 4 to 6 were initially appointed as Assistant Professors under Regulation 3e of the Assam Public Service Commission Regulations on an officiating basis
It was obligatory in terms of that Regulation to consult the Service Commission as soon as possible
Their services were eventually regularised by the Service Commission in one batch and their inter se seniority list was fixed on the recommendations of the Commission
The Commission recommended that it should be fixed as per the instructions of the Government under notification dated February 5 l964
That notification provided among others that if the appointments of a number of persons are regularised in one batch then the inter se seniority of those persons should be according to the merit list of the Service Commission
Even if the Service Commission does not give any merit list the appointing authority should request the Service Commission to indicate the order of preference of those persons
Accordingly the inter se seniority of the persons were fixed after consulting the Commission and in accordance with the rankings assigned to them in the merit PG NO 645 list of the Commission
The High Court said that the seniority list was correctly prepared
This Court dismissed the appeal against the judgment of the High Court
In the course of the judgments this Court observed at p 285 5
It is not in dispute that the appellants and respondents Nos 4 5 and 6 were initially appointed Assistant Professors under Regulation 3e of the Regulations on an officiating basis to avoid delay and it was obligatory in terms of that regulation to consult the Service Commission as soon as possible
The appointments were thus defeasible and could not give rise to any legal right in favour of the parties
It is therefore futile to contend that as the appellants joined as Assistant Professors on an earlier date they were entitled to rank senior to respondents Nos 4 5 and 6 irrespective of the result of the final recruitment through the Service Commission
 This Court could not have taken into consideration the officiating service of the persons therein in view of the Government notification dated February 5 1964 which specifically provided the principles for determining the seniority of persons whose services were regularised by the Service Commission
Since all of them were regularised in one batch after reference to the Service Commission their inter se seniority had to be determined according to the merit list of the Commission
The decision as to seniority in that case therefore rested on the specific notification of the Government
We may also mention that in regard to officers of Delhi Municipal Corporation where there was ad hoc appointments followed by regularisation of service the Delhi High Court has taken a consistent view that such persons should get their service in the ad hoc appointment for determining seniority in the absence of any specific rule to the contrary
See Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs KK Bhatta AIR 1986 LAB IC 1489 at 1492
So much as regards to general principle governing seniority in service jurisprudence
There is however one other important and fundamental principle which should not be forgotten in any case
The principle of counting service in favour one should not be violative of equality of opportunity enshrined in Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution
If ad hoc appointment or temporary appointment is made without considering the claims of seniors in the cadre the service rendered in such appointment should not PG NO 646 be counted for seniority in the cadre
The length of service in ad hoc appointment or stop gap arrangement made in the exigencies of service without considering the claims of all the eligible and suitable persons in the cadre ought not be reckoned for the purpose of determining the seniority in the promotional cadre
To give the benefit of such service to a favoured few would be contrary to the equality of opportunity enshrined in Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution
But if the claims of all eligible candidates were considered at the time of ad hoc appointments and such appointments continued uninterruptedly till the regularisation of services by the Departmental Promotion Committee or the Public Service Commission there is no reason to exclude such service for determining the seniority
Of course if any statutory rule or executive order provides to the contrary the rule or order will have supremacy
In the absence of any rule or order the length of service should be the basis to determine the seniority 
This takes us to the last contention urged for the appellants in Appeal No 5281986
The learned counsel tried to impeach the method by which the ad hoc appointments were made and in particular the ad hoc appointment of RK Kashyap respondent No 3
It was urged that on the date on which he was posted as Executive Engineer he did not have the required experience of five years in the Undertaking
It was made good by taking into consideration his past service in other establishment before he joined the Undertaking
The Undertaking then had no cadre rules of its own providing for such requirements
It was therefore argued that it was wrong on the part of the Undertakings to have counted his past service before he joined the Undertaking to make good the deficiency in his service
It is true that on the date on which respondent 3 and some others were initially considered and appointed as Executive Engineers the Undertaking had no cadre rules of its own
It however followed the cadre rules of the general wing of the Corporation
That cadre rules provided for counting such past service
In our judgment there was nothing wrong in following that cadre rules pending approval of its own cadre rules
Those cadre rules were uniformly applied to all the then available candidates for considering them for ad hoc appointment
The Undertaking made no discrimination
There is indeed no dispute on this aspect
Before the High Court it was a common case of parties that ad hoc appointment was necessary pending finalisation of the cadre rules and approval by the Commission
It was also a common case of parties that for the purpose of making ad hoc arrangements the suitability of all the eligible officers was considered
Moreover the Undertaking was repeatedly requesting the PG NO 647 Commission to regularise the appointments by convening meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee
It is therefore not proper to find fault with those ad hoc appointments at this stage
From the foregoing discussions and in the light of the decisions to which we have called attention we have no hesitation in holding that the conclusion reached by learned judges of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court is correct and does not call for any interference
In the result these appeals fail and are dismissed but no order as to costs
RPD Appeals dismissed


Summary:
The Range Officer Forest of the appellant State lodged complaints with the judicial Magistrate Ist Class against the respondents accused alleging that they had committed offences under section 51 of the Wild Life Protection Act 1972
The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and ordered issue of process to the respondents accused
However
before lodging the aforesaid complaints a case had also been registered against the respondents accused with the concerned police station under sections 447 429 and 379 IPC read with sections 54 and 39 of the Wild life Protection Act
1972 and the matter was under investigation by the police
The respondents accused moved the High Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the aforesaid order of the Magistrate
The High Court quashed the proceedings against the respondents accused on the ground a that the Magistrate acted with out jurisdiction in taking cognizance of the offence and ordering issue of process against the accused since it was a case to which section 2101 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 attracted and that as an investigation by the police was in progress in relation to the same offence the Magistrate would be required to stay the proceedings on the complaint and call for a report in the matter from the Police and b that on the face of the complaint it PG NO 455 PG NO 456 could not be said that the complaint spelts out the ingredients of the offence alleged
Hence these appeals by special leave by the appellant State
Allowing the appeals to this Court HELD 1 The orders of the High Court in Crl
223 of 1987 dated 1321987 and the two orders in Crl
No 25X of 1987R and Crl
No 259 1987R dated 1821987 are set aside and the order dated 171986 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
470H 471A B 21 A perusal of sections 216 236 91 51 and 55 of the Wild Life Protection Act 1972 shows that cognizance of an offence against the Act can be taken by a Court only on the complaint of the officer mentioned in section 55
Even if the jurisdictional police purported to register a case for an alleged offence against the Act sec
2101 Cr
PC 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
462H 463A B 2ii 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 in the instant case
cognizance can be taken only in one way and that on the complaint of a particular statutory functionary
there is no scope or occasion for taking cognizance more than once and accordingly section 210 Cr
PC has no role to play
463R C 3i Jurisdiction under section 482 Cr
which saves the inherent power of the High Court to make such orders as may he necessary to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice has to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection
In exercising that jurisdiction the High Court would not embark upon an enquiry whether the allegations in the complaint are like to be established by evidence or not
that is the function of the Trial Magistrate when the evidence comes before him
463E F 3ii When the High Court is called upon to exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr
PC to quash a proceeding PG NO 457 at the stage of the Magistrate taking cognizance of an offence the High Court is guided by the allegations whether those allegations 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
463G H In the instant case it is difficult to agree with the High Court that the allegation in the complaint taken on their face value would not amount in law to any offence against the Wild Life Protection Act 1972
465G Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs RK Rohtagi  at 890 and Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs PD Jhunjunwala  at 897 followed
4i The ingredients of an offence under sec
gl read with sec
501 of the Act require for its establishment certain ingredients which are not part of the offence under sec
429 IPC and vice versa
470G 4ii The expression any act or omission which constitutes any offence under this Act in section 56 of the Act merely imports the idea that the same act or omission might constitute an offence under another law and could be tried under such other law or laws also
466H 467A 4iii The proviso to section 56 has also a familiar ring and is a facet of the fundamental and salutory principles that permeate penalogy and reflected in analogous provisions of sec
26 of  Section 71 IPC Section 100 of the Cr
PC 1973 and constitutionally guaranteed under article 202 of the Constitution
467A B 5
The expression the same offence substantially the same offences in effect the same offence or practically the same have not done much to lessen the difficulty in applying the tests to identify the legal common denominators of same offence
The same set of facts in conceivable cases can constitute offences under two different laws
An act or an omission can amount to and constitute an offence under the IPC and at the same time constitute an offence under any other law
468B C 470A B Leo Roy Frey vs The Superintendent District Jail Amritsar   State of Madhya Pradesh vs Veereshwar Rao Agnihotry   Omprakash Gupta vs PG NO 458 Slate of U P   The State of Bombay vs section L Apte  Anr   Double Jeoparady the Encyclopedia of Crime and Justice vol 2 p 630 1983 Edn by Sanford H Kudish vs The Free Press Collier Mac Millan Publishers
London and Friedland in Double Jeoparady Oxford 1969 referred to
6i The policy and object of the Wild life laws have a long history and are the result of an increasing awareness of the compelling need to restore the serious ecological imbalance introduced by the depradations inflicted on nature by man
460E F 6ii The State to which the ecological imbalances and the consequent environmental damage have reached is so alarming that unless immediate determined and effective steps were taken the damage might become irreversible
460F G 6iii The largest single factor in the depletion of the wealth of animal life in nature has been the civilized man operating directly through excessive commercial hunting or more disastrously indirectly through invading or destroying natural habitats
462B C