IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2011 / 17TH CHAITHRA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 1008 of 2008(E) -------------------------------------- [CC.NO.131/2006 OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS COURT, RANNI] .................... PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1: ------------------------------------------ FR.SIBY NJAVALLIKUNEL, S/O. LATE MATHEW JOSEPH, PRINCIPAL, LITTLE FLOWER PUBLIC SCHOOL & JUNIOR COLLEGE, MUKKOTTUTHARA P.O., KOLLAMULA, RANNY. BY ADV. SRI.V.PHILIP MATHEWS. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. FOREST RANGE OFFICER, RANNY. 3. DEPUTY RANGER, FOREST STATION, KARIKULAM. R1 TO R3 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. M.K. PUSHPALATHA. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/04/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Crl. M.C. No.1008 of 2008 ==================================== Dated this the 08th day of April, 2011 O R D E R Petitioner is the first accused in O.R. No.2 of 2005 of Karikulam Forest Station facing trial in the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ranni for offences punishable under Sections 2(1), 16(b), 9 and 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (for short, “the Act”). Case is that on 21.03.2005 petitioner and other accused kept in their custody a Python with its eggs in violation of the said Act. Petitioner seeks to quash proceedings against him on the ground that no offence as alleged is involved even as per report submitted by the Range Officer. It is contended that the Range Officer is not competent to file a complaint under Section 55 of the Act and that there is no complaint as well. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. 2. Annexure-4 is the Form No.II report where the gist of charge against the petitioner and other accused is stated. It is open to the learned Magistrate to decide whether Form No.II is a compliant or not. CRL.M.C. No.1008 of 2008 -: 2 :- 3. Next question is whether the Range Officer who preferred Form No.II, report is competent to do so. Learned counsel has referred me to Sec.55 of the Act which states about persons competent to file a complaint. Under the said provision no court is to take cognizance of an offence under the Act on the complaint of any person other than a Director of Wild Life Preservation or any other Officer authorised in that behalf by the Government or the Chief Wild Life Warden or any other Officer authorised in that behalf. Learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that as per Notification No.6211/FM3/75/AD dated 01.02.1975 the Chief Wild Life Warden is authorised to delegate the power by virtue of Sec.(2) of the Act with the previous approval of the State Government by order in writing and it is accordingly that the Range Officer has filed the compliant. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that there is no such mention in Form No.II, report and no such order delegating the power to the Range Officer is produced before the learned Magistrate. The question whether the Range Officer is competent to file the complaint is a matter which petitioner and other accused could urge in the court below at the time charge is being framed against them. 4. It is then contended that even going by the statement CRL.M.C. No.1008 of 2008 -: 3 :- of the Range Officer attached to Form No.II, report it is clear that no offence is committed by petitioner and other accused. In that report it is stated that enquiry by the Range Officer revealed that the Python which came in the flood was caught by the local people and entrusted to the school authorities for its protection and that when it got injured it was given necessary medical aid. According to the learned counsel if that be so, there was no mens rea on the part of petitioner and other accused. I think, these matters are to be raised by the petitioner and other accused before the learned Magistrate at the time of trial in case charge is framed against them. 5. It is requested that petitioner and other accused may be permitted to plead discharge in absentia. Having regard to the circumstances stated I am inclined to allow the request. Resultantly, Criminal Miscellaneous Case is disposed of permitting petitioner and other accused to take all plea/defence before the learned Magistrate in the course of framing charge and at the time of trial. Petitioner and other accused are permitted to plead discharge in absentia appearing through counsel. It is made clear that whatever observation made above will be confined to the disposal of this Crl.M.C. In case learned CRL.M.C. No.1008 of 2008 -: 4 :- Magistrate decides to frame charge, it is open to the petitioner to seek permanent exemption in the course of trial and if any such request is made learned Magistrate shall pass appropriate orders as provided under law and having regard to the circumstances of the case and report of the Range Officer attached to Form No.II, report. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv