RAJESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant, by means of present Application under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C., seeks to quash the summoning order dtd. 10/3/2010 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamoli in Criminal Case No.161 of 2010, under Ss. 9, 49-B, 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as well as the order dtd. 25/4/2013 passed by the Sessions Judge, District Chamoli in Criminal Revision No.43 of 2010.

(2.) Perusal of the record reveals that an FIR was lodged against 4 persons for the offences punishable under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, but the present applicant was not named in the said FIR; thereafter, a complaint was filed by the forest department against 5 persons, including applicant, under the provisions of the Wild Life (Protection) Act; the Magistrate summoned the applicant, vide order dtd. 10/3/2010; and, being aggrieved against the same, applicant preferred a revision before the revisional court, who, in turn, dismissed the same and affirmed the order of the Magistrate, vide order dtd. 25/4/2013.

(3.) Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant vehemently argued that the only allegation in para 4 of the complaint is that the applicant intended to purchase leopard's skin from co-accused Satish Chandra; neither the leopard's skin was purchased by the applicant nor any skin was recovered from his possession; the sole allegation against the applicant is that co-accused Satish Chandra had made a confessional statement to the effect that sometime back, applicant asked Satish Chandra that he wanted to purchase leopard's skin; such confessional statement is of no value; and in the absence of any charge of illegal possession of any animal under Sec. 39, accused could not be held guilty under Sec. 9 of the Act.