PUTTALINGAIAH Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the appellant. The appellant was accused of offences punishable under Sections 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 39 and 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'WLP Act', for brevity) and Sections 39 and 44 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (Hereinafter referred to as the TE Act', for brevity).

(2.) IT is the case of the prosecution that on the night of 15.6.2001, a female elephant was found dead after having come into contact with a live wire fencing, which was installed around the land of the accused, bearing Survey No. 169/8 of Hondarabalu Village, Chamarajanagar Taluk and therefore, the appellant had committed an offence under Section 9 punishable under Section 51 of the WLP Act. It was further alleged that the accused had also committed theft of electrical energy by abstracting power from the primary line, which was connected to the fence around his land and hence he had also committed an offence punishable under Section 39 of the IE Act. In this regard, a charge sheet having been filed for the aforesaid offences and the appellant having claimed to be not guilty and having claimed to be tried, the prosecution had examined ten witnesses, apart from marking several exhibits and material objects and after recording the statements of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'CrPC, for brevity) had framed the following points for its consideration: -

(3.) THOUGH the learned State Public Prosecutor would seek to counter these legal contentions, from an examination of the record and the relevant legal provisions, it is evident that the procedure prescribed under WLP Act and the procedure for prosecution of an offence under the provisions of the IE Act are not the same and hence the proceedings could not have been initiated, as if the procedure is consistent under the two acts.