Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 — Ss. 55(a)-(c), 2(16)(b), 9, 39, 49, 51 — Cognizance of offences — Whether Magistrate may take cognizance on a police/forest officer “final report” — HELD: No. Cognizance can be taken only on a statutory complaint under S.55. Final report under CrPC is impermissible. Cognizance vitiated.

A. Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 — Ss. 55(a)-(c), 2(16)(b), 9, 39, 49, 51 — Cognizance of offences — Whether Magistrate may take cognizance on a police/forest officer “final report” — HELD: No. Cognizance can be taken only on a statutory complaint under S.55. Final report under CrPC is impermissible. Cognizance vitiated.

1. Section 55 WLPA prescribes an exhaustive list of persons competent to file a complaint for purposes of cognizance:
   (a) Director of Wildlife Preservation/authorised officer,
   (b) Chief Wildlife Warden/authorised officer,
   (c) Any person giving 60 days’ notice.

2. The Act does not permit cognizance to be taken on a charge sheet/final report submitted either by:
   (i) Police under Section 173 CrPC, or
   (ii) Forest Officers (including Range Forest Officer).

3. Held, cognizance taken by the Magistrate on a final report submitted by a Range Forest Officer is without authority of law and stands vitiated.
   (Para 6)

B. Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 — FIR/Registration of offences — Range Forest Officer registering FIR — Whether this validates cognizance — HELD: Registration of FIR may occur, but cognizance still depends strictly on S.55 complaint.

4. Even though the Range Forest Officer may register an FIR and conduct preliminary action, cognizance cannot be taken on such material unless a statutory complaint under Section 55 is filed.
   (Para 6)

5. Held: Registration of FIR does not cure the jurisdictional defect. Cognizance must emanate from a complaint under S.55, not from an investigative “final report.”
   (Para 6)

C. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — S. 482 — Quashing of proceedings — Where Magistrate takes cognizance on a final report in a WLPA case — HELD: Proceedings liable to be quashed as cognizance is inherently without jurisdiction.

6. Since the Magistrate’s act of taking cognizance on the final report was contrary to S. 55 WLPA, the entire proceedings are illegal, attracting inherent jurisdiction under S. 482 CrPC.
   (Paras 6–7)

7. Result: Proceedings in C.C. No. 595/2016 quashed.
   (Final Order)

D. Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 — Scheme of prosecution — Mandatory nature of S.55 — HELD: WLPA creates a complaint-based prosecution model; police/forest officer investigation cannot replace statutory complaint.

8. WLPA is not an FIR/charge-sheet-based statute.
   Cognizance is permissible only on a statutory complaint, irrespective of who conducted the investigation.
   (Para 6)