Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Milau Singh Parte vs Regional Forest Officer (West) on 14 September, 2017

                       MCRC-5302-2016
        (MILAU SINGH PARTE Vs REGIONAL FOREST OFFICER (WEST))


14-09-2017

Ms. C.V. Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Mr. C.K. Mishra, learned Government Advocate for the
respondent/State.

Heard.

This petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been directed to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court to quash the POR Case No.2582/2008 registered by Regional Forest Officer (West), Baihar (General), district – Balaghat for offences punishable under Sections 2(1), 9, 50, 51 and 39 (b) of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 for possessing and selling of quails (teeter).

2. As per the prosecution story – Shravan Kumar Uikey – forest guard of beat- Sitagarhi was returning from his duty on 15.06.2014, at about 12 in noon, at Rondatola, Baihar near Tendupatta godown, he sawthat there was a gathering of people under 'Mahua' tree. When he went there, he saw that people of paradhi community were possessing 11 quails (teeter) and selling the same to the public. He intimated to his senior officers. After information, forest officers came to the spot and accused persons were interrogated. 11 quails, 4 quail nets, 5 dadis, 3 khunti fanda and 1 knife were seized from them and POR has been registered against them.

3. On behalf of the petitioners, it is contended that under Section 249 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 and rule 11 of the Abaadi Tatha Dakhalrahit Bhumi Me Aur Uski Upaj Me Adhikar Rules, framed thereunder, licence to fishing, catching, hunting or shooting of animals has been granted to the petitioners. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioners who are 'pardhris' by tribe had any intention to violate law. Hence, POR is liable to be quashed. It is further contended that quails have been included in wild life animal vide notification dated 12.12.2013. It is also submitted that the petitioners have been granted licence on 26.04.2014 and the incident took place on 15.06.2014, after the licence was obtained by the petitioners. Therefore, no offence is made out.

4. On behalf of the respondent/State it is contended by learned Government Advocate that licence has been granted for patwari halka number -55, Ulna, Baihar, district – Balaghat but the petitioners were hunting and selling the birds outside of the limits of the licence provided for.

5. Perused the record and case diary. Section 249 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 reads as follows:

“249. Regulation of Fishing, hunting etc. - (1) The State Government may make rules for regulating -
(a) fishing in Government tanks;
(b) catching, hunting or shooting of animals in villages; and
(c) the removal of any materials from lands belonging to the State Government.
(2) Such rules may provide for the issue of permits, the conditions attaching to such permits and the imposition of fees therefor and other incidental matters.”

6. Rule 11 of the Rules Regarding Regulation of Fishing, Hunting, etc. framed under Section 249 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 reads as follows:

“11. Professionals Shikaries like Pardhis, etc. who catch or snare wild animals shall take out annual permits from the Tahsildar on the payment of a fee of Rs. 2 per annum.”

7. From perusal of the above rule, it is clear that the same provides that persons belonging to Pardhi community whose profession is hunting and catching of animals, may take out annual permits from the Tahsildar on the payment of a fee for such profession.

8. On perusal of the record, it is found that the incident took place on 15.06.2014 whereas the licence was issued by Tahsildar-Baihar, district – Balaghat on 26.04.2014 for a period of one year. Licence does not prescribe any specific area where hunting or catching of birds or animal was to be performed.

9. Therefore, it would be exaggerated to say that the petitioners have hunted or caught the birds outside of the area specified. Burden lies on the prosecution that hunting or catching was being done away from the area of licence.

In view of the preceding analysis, this M.Cr.C. is allowed. POR Case No.2582/2008 is hereby quashed.

(SUSHIL KUMAR PALO) JUDGE ks