JETHMAL NAHATA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KRISHNA Kumar, J. This revision has been filed against the judgment and order dated 12-1-2000 whereby the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut rejected the bail application of the revisionist challaned for offence under Sections 2 (31-B) and 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. Learned Counsel for the revisionist contended that because no offence is made out whatsoever there fore, this revision is being filed. It is argued that under Section 55 of the Act no Court shall take cognizance of any offence under the Act on the complaint of the any person other than: (A) The Director of Wild Life Preserva tion or any other officer authorised in this behalf by the Central Government, or (B) The Chief Wild Life barder or any other officer authorised in this behalf by the State Government. (C) Any person who has given notice of not less than 60 days in the manner prescribed, of the alleged offence and of his intention to make a complaint to the Central Government or State Government or Officer authorised as aforesaid.

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the revisionist contended that the FIR was not lodged by any person mentioned in the said Section. Annexure-I is the recovery memo, it is not a complaint and recovery memo cannot be deemed to be a complaint. It is mentioned in the said recovery memo, that on the information received from the in former, a Maruti Van was intercepted and recovery was made. The recovery memo was prepared on the spot. On the basis of this recovery memo a complaint or FIR must have been filed but the said com plaint or FIR has not been made annexed with this case and therefore, it cannot be held that there was no compliance of the provisions of Section 55 of the Act. As far as recovery memo is concerned Section 50 of the Act is applicable which shows that any police officer not below the rank of the Sub-Inspector may, if he has reasonable ground that any person has committed an offence under the Act 2 (31-B), stop any vehicle in order to conduct search or inquiry and may seize in respect of which offence under this Act appears to have been com mitted. It was for the revisionists to have filed the copy of the complaint or the FIR to show that it was not moved by the person men tioned in the Section 55. From the order of the lower Court, also this fact is not clear. LEARNED Counsel for the revisionist has placed reliance upon (1977) 4 SC Page 351, to argue that against the interlocutory order revision may be filed.