Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2020 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (3) TMI 900 - HC - Indian LawsMaintainability of Complaint - authorised person to file the complaint - section 50(8) of Wild Life (Protection) Act. - whether officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence are not empowered to file a complaint under the Wild Life (Protection) Act? - HELD THAT:- From the perusal of Section 2(d) of the Cr.P.C., it is evident that in a complaint if any allegation against any person is mentioned, with a view to take action against him, he will be deemed as an accused of the complaint. From the definition of ‘complaint’ it does not appear that only when the name of person is mentioned in the cause title of the complaint, then only that person shall be treated as accused of that complaint. Where there are two distinct offences made up of different ingredients, embargo under Article 20(2) or Section 26 of General Clauses Act, 1897 has no application, though the offences may have some overlapping features. The doctrine of double jeopardy protects a person from being tried and punished twice for the same offence, but not from different offences arising out of violation of different laws by the same set of facts. In the present case, in the complaint it is clearly mentioned that the complainant is duly authorised to file a complaint under Section 55 of the Act. At this stage the averment of the complaint is considered prima facie true. So at this stage it can not be ascertained whether the complainant is authorised by the Government to conduct the investigation of crime under the Act or she is competent to record the statement of the persons under Section 50(8) of the Act and for filing of complaint. It is a matter of fact, which requires evidence to decide - Applicant himself in his statement recorded by complainant Sushri Shraddha Pandre under Section 50(8) of the Act admitted that he was involved in smuggling of red crowned roof turtle, and he purchased the same from co-accused Ajay Singh, which is admissible in evidence against the applicant. Forest official also collected the statement of bank account of Ajay Singh showing that applicant transferred money in his account. So, at this stage it cannot be said that there is no evidence on record to connect the applicant with the crime. The petition filed by the applicant is dismissed with the liberty that applicant is free to raise his objections at appropriate stage, which shall be decided by the trial Court according to law without being influenced by the order passed herein.
|