Taking Cognizance Legally Impermissible: Gujarat High Court Quashes Case Against Journalist Disturbing Lion While It Was Feeding Outside Gir National Park
The Gujarat High Court said that as a natural corollary, the initiation or continuation of criminal proceedings premised solely on the police report, is vitiated and cannot be allowed to proceed.
Justice J.C. Doshi, Gujarat High Court
The Gujarat High Court has quashed a case against a journalist associated with NDTV, who disturbed a lion while it was feeding outside the Gir National Park and Sanctuary in the year 2009.
Manish Bhupendrabhai Panwala filed a Petition seeking to quash and set aside the Forest Offence First Report and the chargesheet filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class.
A Single Bench of Justice J.C. Doshi held, “In view of the foregoing analysis, this Court is of the considered opinion that, in the face of an express statutory bar contained in Section 55 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, the taking of cognizance on the basis of a police report is legally impermissible. Consequently, the continuation of the FIR and the filing of the chargesheet pursuant thereto, in absence of a complaint by an authorised officer as mandated by law, would be unsustainable in the eyes of law.”
The Bench added that as a natural corollary, the initiation or continuation of criminal proceedings against the Petitioner, premised solely on the police report, is vitiated and cannot be allowed to proceed.
Advocate Aditya J. Pandya appeared for the Petitioner while Public Prosecutor (PP) Hardik Dave and Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Chintan Dave appeared for the Respondents.
Facts of the Case
The Petitioner, a journalist associated with NDTV for over fourteen (14) years and a South Gujarat Correspondent, had visited the Gir National Park and Sanctuary in November 2009 along with two others who were affiliated with the NGO ‘Prayas’ working in the field of animal and environmental welfare. The group had entered the forest with valid permits and in the company of an official guide. Later that night, while refuelling his vehicle in the city area, the Petitioner was informed by local villagers that a lion was seen consuming its prey in an agricultural field outside the sanctuary limits. Out of curiosity, he and his companions proceeded towards the said location, which falls within the revenue area and not within the forest boundary. Several villagers had already gathered at the site to witness the scene.
At that juncture, the Petitioner and his companions were intercepted by the local Range Forest Officer, who upon learning of the Petitioner’s journalistic credentials, suspected him of conducting a sting operation. Consequently, a Forest Offence First Report was registered under Sections 2(16)(b), 2(33), 9, 39, and 51 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, alleging that the Petitioner had disturbed a lion while it was feeding. Notably, there was no allegation or evidence of hunting, nor were any weapons or contraband recovered from him. The incident location being outside the forest limits was corroborated by the Gram Panchayat's Rojkam. The Petitioner was released on bail on the same day, and thereafter a charge-sheet was filed. The Petitioner contended that the continuation of the criminal proceedings in such circumstances would amount to abuse of the process of law.
Reasoning
The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, observed, “… this Court cannot remain oblivious to the undisputed conduct of the petitioner which, though not strictly amounting to an offence under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, nonetheless reveals a disquieting insensitivity towards the natural habitat of a protected species. As admitted, the petitioners disturbed a lion while it was feeding upon its prey during the night hours by flashing lights from a vehicle, thereby intruding upon its habitat and causing disruption. Though not constituting “hunting” as defined under Section 2(16)(b) of the Act, such actions can only be described as reckless and antagonistic to wildlife conservation ethics.”
The Court noted that evidencing a degree of remorse, the Petitioner has voluntarily donated a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the Gujarat State Lion Conservation Society, Junagadh, as a gesture of contrition and support for wildlife preservation.
“While this cannot retrospectively legalize an otherwise flawed prosecution, it is certainly indicative of a corrective and reformative attitude deserving of due notice”, it added.
The Court further said that the bar contained under Section 55 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 operates with full force, thereby rendering the very institution and continuation of the criminal proceedings against the Petitioner unsustainable in law, inasmuch as cognizance could not have been taken by the Magistrate on the basis of a police report, in the absence of a complaint by the designated authority under the said provision.
“For the reasons and discussion aforestated, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned proceedings are vitiated by a fundamental legal infirmity, inasmuch as cognizance of the alleged offence stands barred by the express mandate of Section 55 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972”, it also said.
The Court, however, clarified that its Order shall not preclude the authorized officer under the Wildlife (Protection) Act from initiating or instituting appropriate proceedings against the Petitioner, in accordance with law, on the basis of the material collected during the course of investigation.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Petition and quashed the proceedings against the Petitioner.
Cause Title- Manish Bhupendrabhai Panwala v. State of Gujarat & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025:GUJHC:45835)
