PEOPLE FOR ANIMALS Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRAYER in the present petition, filed under Section 439(2) read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., is for cancellation of bail/quashing of the order dated 20.6.2005, whereby the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhajjar, granted regular bail to respondent No. 2, in case FIR No. 191, dated 5.6.2005, registered under Sections 9, 39, 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, at Police Station Jhajjar.

(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioners contends that for offences committed, under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (for short herein after referred to as "the Wild Life Act"), jurisdiction to try cases, within the State of Haryana, has been conferred upon two Judicial Magistrates of the Ist Class, one at Faridabad and another at Hisar, pursuant to Notification No. SO.O.16/C.A.2/1974/S.14/97, dated 6.2.1997. Jurisdiction to try and inquite into offences, committed under the Wild Life Act, within the territories of District Jhajjar, vests in the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad and not the Magistrate at Jhajjar. On 6.2.1997, the date when the aforementioned notification was issued, District Jhajjar was a part of District Rohtak, and though carved out subsequently, as it was a part of District Rohtak on 6.2.1997, and as the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jhajjar lacked jurisdiction to try and inquire into offences, committed under the Wild Life Act, the order granting bail to respondent No. 2 being void, is liable to be set aside, and as a consequence, bail granted to respondent No. 2, is liable to be cancelled.

(3.) COUNSEL for respondent No. 2, on the other hand, contends that as a dispute arose, before the Illaqa Magistrate, Jhajjar, as to whether he had jurisdiction to inquire into and try offences, arising under the Wild Life Act, the said Court, vide order dated 9.6.2005 made a reference, under Section 395 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short hereinafter referred to as "the Code"), to the High Court, praying for a clarification as to whether the Courts at Jhajjar or Faridabad would have jurisdiction in the matter. It is further contended that while or after making a reference, under Section 395 of the Cr.P.C., the Illaqa Magistrate is empowered, in the exercise of powers, under Section 395(3) of the Code to either commit the accused to jail or release him on bail, to appear as and when called upon. Respondent No. 2 was admitted to bail in exercise of powers, under Section 395(3) of the Cr.P.C. and, therefore, contention, raised by counsel for the petitioners that the order granting bail is without jurisdiction, merits rejection. It is further contended that as neither the State of Haryana nor the petitioners contend that bail was obtained by fraud, misrepresentation or such like similar acts, bail, granted to respondent No. 2, cannot be cancelled. It is further contended that Section 462 of the Cr.P.C. postulates that an order of a criminal Court cannot be set aside, merely on the ground that the inquiry, trial or other proceedings took place in a wrong sessions division, district, sub-division or other local area, unless it appears that such error has occasioned a failure of justice. The pleadings do not disclose any averment that grant of bail to respondent No. 2 has occasioned a failure of justice. Similarly, it is contended that the petitioners have failed to address any argument that grant of bail to respondent No. 2 has, in any manner, occasioned a failure of justice.