IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.698 OF 2006 (U/s 482 Of Cr.P.C.) Sanjay Singh & others …………Applicant Versus State of Uttaranchal & others …………Respondents Dated: July 26, 2010 Sri Swapnil Bisht, Adv. i/b Mr. SS Bhandari, Adv. for the applicant Sri Amit Bhatt, Addl. GA for the State/respondent no.1 HON. DHARAM VEER, J. Rejoinder affidavit filed today in the Court be taken on record. This criminal application, preferred u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr.P.C.), is directed for quashing the proceedings in Case No.1303 or 2006 U/s 9/13/51/52 of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 [hereinafter to as the Act], pending before the First Addl. CJM, Haridwar. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. In brief, the facts of the case are that on 22.2.2006, Jati Ram, Forest Inspector along with Deshraj Singh, Forst Sub-Inspector and his Assistant was on patrolling duty and he found that two persons were putting down some animal. When they proceeded, then the accused persons ran, however they were caught at about 1 PM by using force and those accused disclosed their names Mohan and Shravan Kumar. On the spot it was found that three dead deer (Sambhar), two on the Tractor- Trolley and one on the land, were lying. There were signs of electrocution on those dead deer. The said Tractor-trolley was seized on the spot and the Fard thereof as well as of those dead deer were prepared. After that the matter was investigated and during investigation, the names of the present petitioners also came into light and accordingly, the charge sheet was filed against the petitioners and 2 against the co-accused, on the basis of which learned First Addl. CJM, Haridwar vide order dated 22.5.2006 summoned the petitioners u/s 9/39/51/52 of the Act. Hence this petition. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that no offence is made out against them and the petitioners have been wrongly summoned by the court below. I do not find any force in this argument for the reason that on a perusal of the report lodged by the complainant, the statements of the witnesses Deshraj Singh, Forest S.I., Baleshwar, Beat Assistant and other witnesses, who fully corroborated the entire story, I find that the offences punishable u/s 9/39/51/52 of the Act are prima facie made out against the petitioners on the basis of the above- said discussion and the trial court has accordingly rightly summoned the petitioners to face trial. Even otherwise, the trial court will decide the case after recording the evidence of the complainant as well as of the accused and also on the basis of the appreciation of the evidence as per law. It is well settled that while exercising jurisdiction under section 482 of the Cr.P.C., this Court would not ordinarily embark upon the enquiry as to whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it accusation would not be sustained. That is the function of the trial court. If the allegations made in the FIR as well as the statements of witnesses are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, I am of the view that the petitioners have rightly been summoned by the trial court. The trial court will decide the case after recording the evidence adduced before it. I am of the view that in the present case there is neither any miscarriage of justice nor any abuse of process of court. For the reasons recorded above, there is no force in the application. The application C482 is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed. Interim order dated 29.8.2006 is vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) July 26, 2010 Rdang