BHARAT RAM Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Click here to view full judgement.
Umesh Chandra Dhyani, J. -
(1.) ACCUSED Bharat Ram was tried and was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 51(1 -A) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The convict preferred an appeal against the order of conviction, which was dismissed by learned Sessions Judge, Champawat, vide impugned judgment and order dated 04.10.2008. Aggrieved against the same, present criminal revision was preferred by the convict -revisionist.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the revisionist made two fold arguments. Firstly, it was argued by the learned counsel that the search and seizure was made by a Head Constable. The second argument advanced by learned counsel for the revisionist was that the Investigating Officer of the case was also a Head Constable. These facts are not under dispute that a Head Constable conducted search and seizure in this case and another Head Constable conducted investigation of the case. Relevant provision of Section 50 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, provides as under:
"50. Power of entry, search, arrest and detention. - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the Director or any other officer authorized by him in this behalf or the Chief Wild Life Warden or the authorised officer or any forest officer or any police officer not below the rank of a sub -inspector, may, if he has reasonable grounds for believing that any person has committed an offence against this Act..............."
(3.) IT , therefore, follows that the Head Constable was not empowered to make search and seizure in respect of any offence punishable under the Act.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.