CH NEWS, BENGALURU
The Karnataka High Court has delivered a significant ruling on procedural jurisprudence under environmental and wildlife legislation, emphasizing that local police lack the statutory competence to directly investigate and file a charge sheet for wildlife offenses without adhering to the explicit mandates of the law.
Presiding over a criminal petition filed by Ramesh N. and three other co-accused, Justice H.P. Sandesh evaluated the legality of criminal proceedings and a police-filed charge sheet originating from an August 2019 incident in Srirangapatna taluk, Mandya district. Local police had conducted a raid following a tip-off regarding the alleged hunting of a wild boar using a firearm within the jurisdiction of the Arakere Police Station, subsequently seizing wildlife meat, a sporting rifle, an air gun, and a transport vehicle. The authorities proceeded to file a charge sheet invoking provisions of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, the Arms Act, and the Motor Vehicles Act.
Upon reviewing the statutory framework, the High Court underlined the strict applicability of Section 55 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. The provision dictates that a court cannot take cognizance of any offense under the Act unless a formal complaint is instituted by designated statutory authorities—such as the Director of Wildlife Preservation, the Chief Wildlife Warden, or an officer authorized by the State Government. While local law enforcement may register an initial information report (FIR) and conduct preliminary inquiries, prosecuting wildlife crimes directly through a police-generated charge sheet without a formal complaint from a competent wildlife official is legally impermissible and vitiates the trial court’s cognizance.
The Bench also scrutinized the application of the Arms Act to the seized equipment. It noted that the primary firearm in question was covered by a valid license, and the charges invoked under Sections 3, 25(1), and 27 of the Arms Act—which target the illegal manufacture, sale, or trafficking of prohibited weapons—were fundamentally misapplied, as there was no evidence supporting such violations.
Regarding the seized ‘Presihole Sports’ air gun, the Court observed that under the Arms Rules, 2016, low-energy air weapons operating below specified threshold limits do not require an arms license for possession. Furthermore, Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) reports failed to confirm that the air gun had been deployed for hunting. Highlighting that keeping the asset idle in judicial custody would cause unnecessary material deterioration, the Bench ordered its immediate release to the petitioner upon executing a security bond of ₹1 lakh, subject to standard conditions prohibiting its alteration or transfer.
Final directives and legal liberty
Ultimately, the High Court quashed the police charge sheet and all ongoing criminal proceedings pending before the Magistrate’s Court. However, the ruling preserves procedural avenues for the state: the bench clarified that the appropriate authorities remain entirely at liberty to pursue a fresh prosecution by filing a proper, legally compliant complaint through designated competent officials under Section 55 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act.
