RAKESH RANJAN Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned counsel for the State and learned senior counsel appearing for O.P. No. 2. This application is directed against the order dated 16.7.2012, passed in Criminal Revision No. 199 of 2010, whereby and whereunder the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Jamshedpur, has affirmed the order dated 4.8.2010, passed in C/1 Case No. 502 of 2006, refusing to discharge the petitioners from the case.

(2.) Before adverting to the submissions, advanced on behalf of the petitioners, the case of the prosecution needs to be taken notice of.

(3.) A complaint was lodged on 21.4.2006 by the complainant/O.P. No. 2, alleging therein that he did find wild birds being captivated in a cage height of which was never sufficient enough to allow the birds to have free movement. At the same time, it was also found that the Club, i.e. G. Town Club to which the petitioners are the Secretary and Manager, had fixed the light in the cage which created unnatural environment to the birds. The said occurrence, as per the case of the complainant, took place in the month of October, 2005, whereas the complaint was filed on 21.4.2006. Thereupon, the cognizance of the offence under Section 11(1)(e) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and also under Section 9 of the Wild Life Protection Act, was taken against the petitioners vide order dated 3.2.2007. Subsequently, an application for discharge was filed wherein a plea was taken that the prosecution cannot be maintained in view of the provision as contained in Section 36 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, which prevents the prosecution being launched after expiration of three months from the date of the commission of the offence. That plea was rejected by the Court below holding therein that the plea taken with respect to limitation would be taken into account at the time of final disposal of the case. That order was challenged before the Revisional Court and the Revisional Court also did not accept the plea advanced on behalf of the petitioners on the ground that the prosecution has not been launched only for commission of the offence under Section 11(e) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, but also under Section 9 of the Wild Life Protection Act, though according to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the Revisional Court when did not find the case being made out under Section 9 of the Wild Life Protection Act, discharged the petitioners from being prosecuted under Section 9 of the Wild Life Protection Act. Being aggrieved with that order, this application has been filed.