S.50 Wildlife Protection Act | Police Empowered to Tackle Wildlife Crimes, Investigation & Seizure Powers Granted: J&K High Court
Affirming the authority of police officers to investigate offenses under the Wildlife Protection Act, the Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh High Court has reiterated that a Police officer is sufficiently empowered to investigate the offenses committed under the Act and is hence equally competent to search and seize the offending articles in such matters.These observations arose from a petition...
Affirming the authority of police officers to investigate offenses under the Wildlife Protection Act, the Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh High Court has reiterated that a Police officer is sufficiently empowered to investigate the offenses committed under the Act and is hence equally competent to search and seize the offending articles in such matters.
These observations arose from a petition filed by Arjun Balraj Mehta, a national-level shooter, who was accused of illegally hunting a Ladakhi Urial (wild sheep) in the Hemis National Park. Mehta challenged the FIR registered against him, arguing that only authorized wildlife officials could investigate such offenses.
Mehta's lawyer argued that the cognizance of an offense under the Wildlife Protection Act, cannot be taken by a Court without the written complaint of an authority under the Wildlife Act and the case against the petitioner had been registered and investigated by the Police, as such its cognizance cannot be taken by the Court.
He further argued that no dead animal or its remains were found, and the charges against him were based on mere suspicion.
The respondents submitted that thorough investigations had revealed sufficient evidence to charge the petitioner under relevant wildlife and arms legislation. They emphasized the role of the police in investigating such offenses, citing legal precedents and an advisory from the Wildlife Crime Control Bureau.
Court's Observations:
After considering the rival contentions Justice M. A. Chowdhary, citing the Wildlife Protection Act and relevant legal precedents, affirmed the authority of police officers to investigate wildlife-related offenses.
The court noted that Section 50 of the Act empowered police officers to conduct investigations, seize offending articles, and take cognizance of offenses.
Drawing upon the precedent set by the Supreme Court in Moti Lal vs CBI (2002), the bench rejected Mehta's arguments and recorded,
“The scheme of Section 50 of the Wildlife Act makes it abundantly clear that Police Officer is also empowered to investigate the offences and search and seize the offending articles. For trial of offences, Code of Criminal procedure is required to be followed and for that there is no other specific provision to the contrary. Special procedure prescribed is limited for taking cognizance of the offence as well as powers are given to other officers mentioned in Section 50 for inspection, arrest, search and seizure as well of recording statement”
Commenting on the plea for cognizance raised by the petitioner Justice Chowdhary termed the same as premature because the charge-sheet was yet to be laid before the competent court of law and the petitioner would have every right to raise the plea of cognizance before the competent Court.
On the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the dead or remains of the animal killed had not been recovered or seized to establish the petitioner's guilt the court said that the said contention made no sense, as even an attempt to kill is also an offense and otherwise also, this shall be a factual matter to be considered during the trial.
In light of these observations, the bench dismissed the petition.
Case Title: Arjun Balraj Mehta Vs UT of Ladakh
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 30