Wild Life (Protection) Act | Offence Must Be Registered In Wild Life Offences Report Before Issuing Serach Warrant: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has quashed proceedings initiated against one person found in possession of certain prohibited articles under the Wild Life (Protection) Act on account of procedural irregularities in the investigation.

A single judge, Justice Hemant Chandangoudar allowed the petition filed by Pavana Kumar M R who was charged under Sections 2(2), 2(31), 9, 39, 42, 44, 47, 48, 48A, and 49B read with Sections 50, 51, 55, and 58(C)(J) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.

As per the prosecution's case, upon receiving credible information that the petitioner was in possession of deer and kangaroo skin without a license, the Assistant Conservator of Forests issued a search warrant under Section 50(8) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.

Pursuant to the search warrant issued on 08.08.2021, the Range Forest Officer (RFO) conducted a search of the petitioner's premises and discovered certain prohibited articles under the Act. Subsequently, the RFO filed a complaint under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 before the learned Magistrate.

The Magistrate took cognizance of the offences and permitted the respondent to conduct further investigation as per Section 50(8) of the Act, 1972. Thereafter, the Assistant Conservator of Forests conducted an investigation and submitted a report on 20.12.2021, concluding that the petitioner was in possession of prohibited wildlife articles without a license.

The petitioner argued that the search warrant was issued without first registering a case against the petitioner for contravening the provisions of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.

Further, the Assistant Conservator of Forests conducted an investigation only after the Magistrate had already taken cognizance and subsequently submitted a final report on 20.12.2021, which is in violation of Section 50(8) of the Act.

The prosecution claimed that there is no mandatory requirement to register a case before filing a complaint. He argued that the learned Magistrate, after perusing the complaint, rightly took cognizance of the offences and permitted the Assistant Conservator of Forests to conduct further investigation.

Findings:

The bench relied on coordinate bench judgment in Crl.P No.10873/2023 (DD 17.11.2023), wherein the court ruled that the Assistant Conservator of Forest, before issuing a search warrant,t was required to register a Wild Life Offence Report.

The bench said, “In the present case, upon receiving credible information regarding the petitioner's possession of prohibited wildlife articles, the Assistant Conservator of Forests, before issuing a search warrant, was required to register a case in the Wild Life Offences Report (WLOR), as mandated by the Wildlife Crime Control Bureau guidelines of the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India.”

It added, “However, in the absence of prior case registration, the entire process, including the filing of the complaint, taking cognizance, and conducting further investigation, stands vitiated, being in violation of Section 50(8) of the Act, 1972.”

Allowing the petition it held “In view of the procedural irregularities and legal infirmities, continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner would be unjust and constitute an abuse of process of law.”

Further, it clarified that the petitioner shall not be entitled to the release of the seized articles, which shall remain the property of the Government.

Appearance: Senior Advocate Sandesh J Chouta for Advocate Abhishek K for Petitioner.

HCGP M R Patil for Respondent

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 79

Case Title: Pavan Kumar M R AND State of Karnataka

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 730 OF 2024

Click Here To Read/Download Order