1. Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of the learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioners and the learned APP for the State, and perused the record and judgment relied upon by the learned Advocate for the Petitioners.

2. The Petitioners have invoked Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, the ‘BNSS’) to quash the First Information Report bearing No. 59 of 2022 dated 1st July 2022 registered with Ispurli Tal Karvir Police Station, District-Kolhapur for the offences punishable under Sections 9, 39, 40, 43, 44 and 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (for short “the Act”) and the charge-sheet filed pursuant to it.

3. Police Head Constable, Mr. Sambhaji Bhosale, without having the authority, lodged the report with Ispurli Tal Karvir Police Station, Kolhapur against the Petitioners, alleging that he received secret information through API Gorale that two unknown persons were about to make a sale of a dead leopard skin at Kolhapur-Gargoti Road near Dinderli Phata, Kolhapur. Accordingly, he and the team laid a trap. They suspected two persons; therefore, they stopped them, enquired with them, and conducted a personal search. During their personal search, they found a bag containing the skins of a dead leopard and other wild animals. Based on his report, an offence was registered against the Petitioners vide FIR No. 59 of 2022 for offences punishable under Sections 9, 39, 40, 43, 44, and 51 of the said Act.

4. Learned Advocate for the Petitioners vehemently contended that the Informant, Police Head Constable, Mr. Sambhaji Bhosale, was neither empowered nor authorised to lodge the report as mandated under Section 55 of the Act and, therefore, on that ground alone, the FIR as well as the charge-sheet are liable to be quashed and set aside.

5. To buttress his submission, he has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Mannu Kaduba Gavane and another vs. State of Maharashtra(2016 (1) Bom. C.R. (Cri.) 800) (for short, ‘Mannu’) and drew my attention to paragraphs 8 to 11 of the said Judgment and submitted that, in view of the law laid down by this Court, the FIR as well as the charge-sheet are liable to be quashed and set aside.

6. As against, the learned APP does not dispute the law laid down in the said Judgment and the facts averred in the case at hand and those in the said case are identical. Therefore, he only submitted that, in view of the observations made by this Court in Mannu (supra), the order may be passed with liberty to the State to rectify the defects as granted to the State in the said judgment.

7. Learned APP further submitted that in Elvish Yadav alias Siddharth Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another(2026 SCC OnLine SC 531), (for short, ‘Elvish’) the Hon’ble Supreme Court after considering Section 55 of the Act and, in paragraphs 27 and 44 to 50, has observed that the Section 55 of the Act is pari materia to Section 32 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, wherein set forth the procedure for taking “cognizance of the offences” and therefore held that the FIR and the criminal proceedings pending against the accused therein cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and are liable to be quashed and set aside. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also granted liberty to the competent authorities under Section 55 of the Act to press into service the said provisions and take appropriate measures against the accused therein.

8. Having considered the above submissions and facts of the case, I would like to reproduce Section 55 of the Act, which thus reads as under:-

                   “55. Cognizance of offences.- No Court shall take cognizance of any offence against this Act on the complaint of any person other than -

                   (a) the Director of Wild Life Preservation or any other officer authorised in this behalf by the Central Government; or

                   [(aa) Member-Secretary, Central Zoo Authority in matters relating to violation of the provisions of Chapter IV-A; or]

                   [(ab) Member-Secretary, Tiger Conservation Authority; or

                   (ac) Director of the concerned tiger reserve; or]

                   [(ad) the Management Authority or any officer, including an officer of the Wild Life Crime Control Bureau, authorised in this behalf by the Central Government; or]

                   (b) the Chief Wild Life Warden, or any other officer authorised in this behalf by the State Government (subject to such conditions as may be specified by that Government]; or

                   [(bb) the officer-in-charge of the zoo in respect of violation of provisions of section 38-J; or]

                   (c) any person who has given notice of not less than sixty days, in the manner prescribed, of the alleged offence and of his intention to make a complaint to the Central Government or the State Government or the officer authorised as aforesaid.]”

9. A bare perusal of the above section makes it clear that under Section 55 of the Act, Cognisance of the Offences under the said Act can be taken by a Court only on the basis of a Complaint made by officers/ authorities mentioned therein. That means the only authority/officers mentioned in the Section are authorised to make a complaint; then only the Court shall take Cognisance of the Offences under the said Act; else, the Court shall not take Cognisance of the Offences under the said Act on the Complaint of any person other than those authorised in Section 55 of the Act.

10. It is trite law that when a statute provides for a special procedural mechanism to be followed, the same shall be adhered to, by excluding the general statutory provisions. It is an equally well-settled rule of interpretation of statutes that strict and liberal interpretations shall apply to penal law. However, nothing has been produced on record to indicate that Police Head Constable, Mr. Sambhaji Bhosale, had authority to make a Complaint as mandated in Section 55 of the Act. On the contrary, it clearly reveals that Police Head Constable Mr. Sambhaji Bhosale, without the authority as mandated under Section 55 of the Act, lodged the complaint.

11. In the light of the above and having gone through the decisions cited by the learned Advocate for the Petitioners in Mannu (supra), and by the learned APP in Elvish (supra), it seems that the facts in the case at hand as well as the facts in those judgments are identical, as undisputedly the competent authority as mandated in Section 55 of the Act had not lodged the report. Therefore, in my view, the law laid down by this Court in the decision of Mannu (supra), as well as the dictum laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Elvish (supra), squarely applies to the facts in the case in hand.

12. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the registration of the FIR as well as the filing of the charge-sheet against the Petitioners cannot be sustained in the eyes of the law and are liable to be quashed and set aside.

13. Consequently, the Petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a).

14. Rule is made absolute in the above terms.

15. Needless to state that the State, however, is at liberty to rectify the defects in the light of the above and take suitable steps in accordance with law.

                   OR

                   The liberty is granted to the Competent Authorities under Section 55 of the Act to press into service the said provision and take appropriate measures against the Petitioners, if so advised, taking note of the facts which have arisen in the present case.

16. The Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.