OMANAKUTTAN PILLAI Vs. THE STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is one among the accused in a case registered by the Forest Range Officer, Pathanapuram Range, for offences covered by Wildlife Protection Act and the Rules thereunder. The case was registered over the bringing of an elephant to the State in violation of the provisions of the Act and Rules from outside. That elephant, after seizure, is now stated to be kept in Konni Elephant Care Centre. Petitioner sought custody of the elephant moving an application before the magistrate, to whom its seizure was reported. That application was turned down by the magistrate. Challenge in the petition is against the order of the magistrate produced as Annexure - A8. After hearing the counsel for petitioner and also learned Special Public Prosecutor, Forests, and going through Annexure -A8 order, I find no interference in exercise of the inherent powers of This Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is called for. The magistrate has taken note that claim was raised over the elephant on the basis of a gift deed by the petitioner subsequent to seizure of the elephant and registration of the crime. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that some of the observations made in Annexure -A8 order would cause prejudice to him in the trial of the case, in which after completing investigation final report has already been laid before the magistrate. I do not find any reason for entertaining such apprehension. However, taking note of the submission made by the counsel it is made clear that none of the observations or findings made in Annexure -A8 can have any bearing in the trial of the case on the indictment levelled. Such trial has to proceed as per the provisions of the Code and finding of guilty or not guilty can be made only on the evidence tendered and not on any observation made in the order over the claim made. Learned Counsel for petitioner also made fervent plea for issuing a direction to the magistrate to expedite the trial submitting that the case was registered in 2007 and final report filed, after investigation, in 2011. The magistrate shall give the case top priority for trial, and dispose it of expeditiously.