Wild life act (protection) | The crime must be registered in the Wild Life Crimes Report before issuing a reference order of being: Superior Court of Karnataka

The Superior Court of Karnataka annulled the procedures initiated against a person who is in possession of certain prohibited articles under the Wildlife Law (protection) due to procedural irregularities in the investigation.

A single judge, Judge Hemant Chandangouud allowed the request presented by Pavana Kumar MR, who was accused 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 World Life Law (Protection), 1972.

According to the case of the Prosecutor’s Office, upon receiving credible information that the petitioner was in possession of deer and kangaroo skin without a license, the conservative forest assistant issued a search warrant under section 50 (8) of the Wildlife Law (protection), 1972.

In accordance with the search warrant issued on 8.08.2021, the Range Forest (RFO) officer conducted a search in the requests of the petitioner and discovered certain prohibited articles under the law. Subsequently, the RFO filed a complaint under section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the scholarly magistrate.

The magistrate took the knowledge of the crimes and allowed the defendant to carry out more investigations according to section 50 (8) of the Law, 1972. Subsequently, the conservative forest assistant conducted an investigation and presented 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 to contravene the provisions of the Wildlife Law (protection), 1972.

In addition, the conservative forest assistant conducted an investigation only after the magistrate had already had knowledge and subsequently submitted a final report on 20.12.2021, which violates section 50 (8) of the law.

The Prosecutor’s Office said there is no mandatory requirement to register a case before fileing a complaint. He argued that the scholarly magistrate, after examining the complaint, rightly took the knowledge of crimes and allowed the conservative forest assistant to carry out more investigations.

Recommendations:

The bank was based on the banking of the bank coordinated in CRL.P No.10873/2023 (DD 17.11.2023), in which the Court ruled that the conservative assistant of the forest, before issuing a search warrant, had to register a wildlife crime report.

The bank said: “In the present case, upon receiving credible information about the possession of the petitioner of prohibited wildlife articles, the conservative forest assistant, before issuing a search warrant, it was required to register a case in the Wildlife Crimes report (Wort), as ordered by the guidelines of the Office of Wildlife Crimes Control of the Ministry of Environment and Forest.

Added, “However, in the absence of registration of previous cases, the entire process, including the presentation of the complaint, the knowledge and the realization of an additional investigation, is vitiated, is in violation of section 50 (8) of the Law, 1972”.

Allowing the request he had “In view of procedural irregularities and legal diseases, the continuation of the criminal procedures against the petition would be unfair and would constitute an abuse of the law process.”

In addition, he clarified that the petitioner will not be entitled to the release of the seized articles, which will continue to be the property of the government.

APPEARANCE: Lawyer Senior Sandesh J Chouta for defender Abhishek K for the petitioner.

HCGP Mr. Patil for defendant

No: 2025 LIVELAW (KAR) 79

Case title: Pavan Kumar MR and State of Karnataka

No case: Criminal request no. 730 of 2024

Click here to read/download order

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j20Uokg_eni