STATE OF BIHAR versus MURAD ALI KHAN, FARUKH SALAUDDIN & VIKRAM SINGH

Citation: [1988] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 455 · Decided: 10-10-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANGANATH MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF BIHAR 
v. 
MURAD ALI KHAN, FARUKH SALAUDDIN & VIKRAM 
SINGH 
OCTOBER 10, 1988 
[RANGANATH MISRA AND M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, JJ,] 
Wild Life Protection Act, 1972, ss. 9(1), 51, 55 and 56-
Cognizance of the offe11ce against the accused by the Magistrate-
Permissibility of-Pendency of police Investigation for the same offence 
against the same act-Effect of-Whether s. 210(1) Cr. P. C. applicable. 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, s. 482-Scope of-Power of 
th~ High Court to go into the question whether the offence could be 
established by evidence or not-Explained. 
A 
B 
c 
Words and Phrases--'Tlw same offcncc'--'Substantialiy the same 
D 
ojfence'--'/11 effect the same offenc~'--'Practlcally the i·ame offence'--
Meanlng of. 
The Ronl!e Ofllcer, Forest of the nppollnnt·Stote lodged 
complolnt1 with the Judlclol Mnalstrale Jst CloH11 a11olnNt the respon· 
dent&•RCCUllld olleglng thot they hod committed offences under section e 
51 of the Wiid Life Protection Act, 1972. The learned Magistrate took 
co11nlzance of the offence 011d ordered Issue of process to the respon· 
dents·occused. However, before lod11ln11 the nfore1nld complolnt1 1 u 
co~e hod also been rc11lstered agolnst the re1pondents·nccuscd with the 
concerned police 1tatlon under section~ 44 7, 429 and 379, IPC read with 
sections !4 nnd 3!1 of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1!172 and the matter F 
wus under lnvcHtll!utlon hy the police. 
The respondents,nccused moved the High Court under section 
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashln11 the aforesaid order 
of the Magistrate, The High Court qunshed the proceedings against the 
respondents-accused on the ground: (a) tho! the Magistrate acted with· o 
out jurisdiction In toking coanlzance of the offence and orderln11 Issue of 
proceH 1111olnst the accused, since It was a cnse to which section 210(1) 
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 oitrocted and that aM an : 
Investigation by the police w11s In pro11ress In relation to the 1ame 
offence the Mnslstrote would be required to 1tay the- proceedln111 on the 
complnlnt nnd cnll for n report In the molter from the Police; and (b) H 
4SS 
. '"r' 
A 
13 
c 
456 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1988] Supp. 3 S.C.R. 
that on the face of the complaint, it could not be said that the complaint 
spells out the ingredients of the offence alleged. Hence these appeals by 
special leave by the appellant-State. 
Allowing the appeals to this Court, 
HELD: (I) The orders of the High Court in Crl. Misc. 223of1987 
dated 13.2.1987 and the two orders in Crl. Misc. No. 258 of 1987(R) 
and Crl. Misc. No. 259 1987(R) dated 18.2.1987 are set aside and the 
order dated I. 7 .1986 of the learned Magistrate taking cognizance of the 
offence and ordering issue of summons to the respondents is restored.· 
The criminal case initiated on the complaint will now be proceeded with 
in accordance with law. [470H; 471A-B] 
2(i) A perusal of sections 2(16), 2(36), 9(1), 51 and 55 of the Wild 
Life Protection Act, 1972 shows that cognizance of an offence against 
the "Act" can be taken by a Court only on the complaint of the officer 
mentioned in section 55. Even if the jurisdictional police purported to 
D register a case for an alleged offence against the Act, sec. 210(1) 
Cr. P.C. would not be attracted having regard to the position that 
cognizance of such an offence can .only be taken on the complaint of the 
officer mentioned in that section. [462H; 463A-B] 
2(ii) Where a Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence instituted 
E 
otherwise than on a police-report and an investigation by the police is in 
progress in relation to same offence, the two cases do not lose their 
separate identity. The section seeks to obviate the anomalies that might 
arise from taking cognizance of the same offence more than once. But, 
where, as in the instant case, cognizance can be taken only in one way 
and that on the complaint of a particular statutory functionary, there is 
p 
no scope or occasion for taking cognizance more than once and accord-
ingly, section 210 Cr.P.C. has no role to play. [463B-C) 
3(i) Jurisdiction nnder section 482 Cr.P.C., which saves the 
inherent power of the High Court, to make snch orders as may be 
necessary to prevent abuse of the process of any conrt or otherwise to 
o 
secure the ends of justice, has to he exercised sparingly and with 
circumspection. In exercising that jurisdiction, the High Court would not 
embark upon an enquiry whether the allegations in the com
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.