Karnataka HC: Wildlife Offence Cannot Be Prosecuted Solely on Police Charge Sheet Without Section 55 Complaint

Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 21.09.2026

Karnataka HC: Wildlife Offence Cannot Be Prosecuted Solely on Police Charge Sheet Without Section 55 Complaint

The Karnataka High Court has quashed criminal prosecution against four accused in a case involving the alleged hunting of a wild boar, holding that where offences under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 are invoked, the statutory requirement contained in Section 55 governing cognizance must be complied with.

Justice H.P. Sandesh, while allowing the connected proceedings, held that although the police may register an FIR and investigate the matter, prosecution for offences under Sections 9 and 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act cannot proceed merely on the basis of the Investigating Officer’s charge sheet when the complaint contemplated under Section 55 has not been filed by a competent authorised person.

The Court also dealt with the application for release of a .177 calibre air gun, holding that the air gun involved fell within a category that did not require an arms licence and directing its release subject to conditions.

The common order was delivered on September 19, 2026, in Sri Ramesh N. v. State by Arakere Police Station, W.P. No. 9069 of 2023, connected with Criminal Petition No. 9420 of 2022.

Allegation: Wild Boar Hunted With Sporting Rifle

• According to the prosecution, the incident occurred during the early hours of August 25, 2019, at about 4:30 a.m.
• The accused were alleged to have hunted a wild boar using a 30.06 sporting rifle bearing No. 176100134 RFI.IN.2017, along with cartridges, allegedly without the requisite permission.

Following information received by the police, a raid was conducted, articles were seized and criminal proceedings were initiated. After investigation, the police filed a charge sheet alleging offences under:

• Sections 3, 25(1) and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959;
• Sections 9 and 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972; and
• Sections 146 and 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The police also seized a goods vehicle allegedly belonging to accused No. 1, claiming that it did not have valid insurance.

Petitioners: Sporting Rifle Was Licensed

• The accused approached the High Court under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings.
• Their principal argument under the Arms Act was that the ingredients of Sections 3, 25 and 27 were not attracted.
• They argued that they had not engaged in the manufacture or sale of arms or ammunition and that the weapon in question was a licensed firearm.
• The petitioners further contended that the wild boar was damaging the paddy crop of petitioner No. 2 and that the incident had taken place in a paddy field rather than a reserved forest or other restricted hunting area.
• They also relied on Section 11(2) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act in support of their defence and referred to a notification concerning wild boars in neighbouring Ramanagara district.
• The State opposed the petitions, arguing that even possession of a licensed weapon remains subject to the conditions attached to the licence and that there was no permission to hunt wild boar merely to protect crops.

Karnataka HC: Sections 3, 25 and 27 Arms Act Not Properly Invoked

• The High Court examined the statutory scheme of the Arms Act, 1959 in detail.
• Section 3 prohibits a person from acquiring, possessing or carrying a firearm or ammunition without a licence issued in accordance with the Act and Rules.
• However, in the present case, the Court found that a licence had in fact been issued by the competent authority for the SBBL rifle. The licence was initially within Bengaluru District and was subsequently extended to the jurisdiction of Karnataka State.
• The High Court therefore observed that the existence of the licence was clear. Whether its conditions had been contravened was a matter to be considered separately.
• Justice Sandesh further found that there was no allegation that the petitioners had engaged in the sale or manufacture of arms or ammunition.
• Consequently, the Court held that there was force in the petitioners’ contention that invoking Sections 3, 25 and 27 of the Arms Act against them in the manner adopted by the prosecution was bad in law.

Section 30 Arms Act Was Relevant to Breach of Licence Conditions

• An important aspect of the judgment is the High Court’s reference to Section 30 of the Arms Act.
• The Court noted that Section 30 deals with punishment for contravention of a condition of a licence, or a provision of the Act or Rules for which punishment has not otherwise been provided.
• The High Court observed that the Investigating Agency had failed to consider Section 30 before invoking Sections 3, 25 and 27.
• The distinction was important because the prosecution’s case involved a firearm for which a licence existed, rather than a straightforward case of possession of an unlicensed firearm.

Section 27 Arms Act Is Confined to Contraventions of Sections 5 or 7

• The High Court also relied upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Surinder Singh v. State (Union Territory of Chandigarh), (2021) 20 SCC 24.
• Referring to that ruling, the Court noted that after amendment of Section 27 of the Arms Act, the provision is confined to violations connected with Sections 5 or 7 of the Arms Act.
• The earlier concept of using a weapon for an “unlawful purpose” was no longer, by itself, an inseparable ingredient of Section 27 after the amendment.
• The High Court further noted the Supreme Court’s observation that where a person is in authorised possession of a weapon, he cannot simply be treated as having used an unlicensed weapon prohibited under Section 5.
• The Karnataka High Court also referred to the Kerala High Court’s decision in Joby and Others v. State of Kerala, where it was observed that Section 27 would be attracted where the use of arms or ammunition was in contravention of Section 5, and that use of a licensed gun for shooting a wild boar would not, merely for that reason, constitute an Arms Act offence under the provision.

Section 55 Wildlife Act Becomes Decisive

• The most consequential part of the ruling concerned Section 55 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.
• Sections 9 and 51 of the Act had been invoked against the accused. Section 9 prohibits hunting of specified wild animals except as permitted under the Act, while Section 51 prescribes penalties for contraventions.
• Section 55, however, specifically regulates cognizance of offences under the Wildlife Act.
• The High Court noted that a court cannot take cognizance of an offence under the Act except upon a complaint by the persons/statutory authorities specified in Section 55, including the designated wildlife authorities or other duly authorised persons.

No Complaint Filed by Officer Specified Under Section 55

• Applying the provision to the facts, the High Court found that no complaint had been lodged by an officer specified under Section 55.
• Instead, the proceedings had arisen from police action, investigation and the subsequent filing of a charge sheet.
• The Court recorded that the accused had allegedly been found in possession of wild boar meat and weapons, were arrested and subsequently released on bail. The rifle allegedly used in the incident had also already been released.
• Justice Sandesh drew an important distinction: an FIR can be registered and the police can investigate, but when prosecution is sought for offences under Sections 9 and 51 of the special enactment, the requirement of a complaint by an authorised person under Section 55 must be satisfied.
• The Court held that the Investigating Officer could make use of material gathered during investigation, but prosecution under the Wildlife Act could not proceed in the manner adopted without the statutorily required complaint.

Supreme Court’s Murad Ali Khan Judgment Applied

• The High Court relied significantly upon the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan & Others, (1988) 4 SCC 655.
• In that case, the Supreme Court had examined Section 55 and held that cognizance of an offence under the Wildlife Act could be taken only upon the complaint of the statutory officer contemplated by the provision.
• The Karnataka High Court reproduced the Supreme Court’s explanation that even if the jurisdictional police register a case concerning an alleged Wildlife Act offence, the statutory manner in which the court may take cognizance remains governed by Section 55.
• The Court also relied on its earlier decision in Sri S. Bylaiah v. State of Bannerghatta Police, ILR 2008 KAR 1892, where proceedings had been quashed because the complainant was not an authorised person within the meaning of Section 55.
• Ultimately, the Court found that the present proceedings had been initiated solely on the basis of registration of the police case rather than through the complaint required under Section 55.
• It therefore held that there was a clear statutory bar to taking cognizance in the manner adopted.

.177 Calibre Air Gun Did Not Require Licence

• The connected writ petition raised another significant question concerning the seized PRECIHOLE SPORTS CAL. 4.5 (.177) air gun, Serial No. AH0-01581.
• Ramesh N. sought release of the air gun, contending that it was an exempted weapon that did not require an arms licence.
• The petitioner’s case was that an air rifle with muzzle energy below 20 joules or 15 ft-lbs and/or bore below .177 inch/4.5 mm fell within Category III(f)(ii) of the Arms Rules, 2016 and was not subject to licensing requirements.
• The FSL examination recorded that the seized weapon was a .177 calibre air gun, was in working condition and had an effective range of approximately 25 yards.
• The High Court ultimately found that the air gun fell within Category III(f)(ii) and therefore did not require an arms licence.
• It also noted that the FSL report did not establish that the air gun had been used for hunting.

Keeping Seized Air Gun Idle Would Cause Deterioration

• The Trial Court had earlier refused release of the air gun, partly because of an apprehension that it could again be used for hunting or could be transferred or altered.
• The High Court found this reasoning unsustainable.
• Justice Sandesh observed that such apprehension could not by itself justify continued retention of the weapon. The Court also took into account that keeping the air gun idle could cause its condition and value to deteriorate.
• Accordingly, it held that the Trial Court ought not to have rejected the application for release.

Criminal Prosecution Quashed — But Fresh Complaint Permitted

• The Karnataka High Court ultimately allowed Criminal Petition No. 9420 of 2022 and quashed the Trial Court’s taking of cognizance and the criminal prosecution in C.C. No. 1216/2021 because the proceedings violated Section 55 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act.
• However, this is an important qualification: the Court did not permanently foreclose prosecution for the alleged wildlife offence.
• The High Court expressly granted liberty to the prosecuting authority to invoke Section 55 through a competent officer and file a complaint invoking the appropriate offences.
• Thus, the judgment is primarily a ruling on the legality of the mode of prosecution and cognizance, rather than a final factual determination that no wild boar was hunted.

Air Gun Ordered to Be Released

• The High Court also allowed W.P. No. 9069 of 2023, set aside the Trial Court’s order dated August 2, 2022 and allowed the application under Section 457 CrPC.
• The Investigating Officer was directed to release the air gun after obtaining an indemnity bond of ₹1,00,000 with one surety.

The release was made subject to conditions that the petitioner:

• must not sell the air gun;
• must not alter its nature; and
• must produce it whenever required by the authority or the Court.

Important Precedents Referred to by the High Court

• The judgment referred to several decisions concerning the Arms Act, Wildlife Act and inherent powers of the High Court, including Deomuni Sharma v. State of Jharkhand, (2009) 16 SCC 80, on Section 27 of the Arms Act; Gulam Mustafa Malik v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 1577, concerning Section 55 of the Wildlife Act; Rajan & Others v. State of U.P., 2008 (2) AJHAR (NOC) 554 (All.), concerning sanction under the Arms Act; and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, on the scope of Section 482 CrPC.
• It further relied on State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan & Others, (1988) 4 SCC 655, Surinder Singh v. State (UT of Chandigarh), (2021) 20 SCC 24, Manish Bhupendrabhai Panwala v. State of Gujarat & Another, Joby & Others v. State of Kerala and Sri S. Bylaiah v. State of Bannerghatta Police, ILR 2008 KAR 1892.

Why the Judgment Is Significant

• The ruling draws an important distinction between police investigation and statutory cognizance under a special enactment.
• The High Court did not hold that police are powerless to register an FIR or investigate alleged wildlife offences. Instead, it held that where prosecution is ultimately pursued for offences under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, the special procedure prescribed by Section 55 for taking cognizance cannot be bypassed by proceeding solely on a police charge sheet.
• The judgment is also important for firearms law because it distinguishes between the use of a licensed firearm and offences specifically contemplated by Sections 3, 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. Where the allegation may concern breach of licence conditions, the appropriate statutory provision must be identified rather than mechanically invoking provisions dealing with unlicensed possession or other distinct Arms Act contraventions.
• Finally, the ruling provides useful clarification regarding low-powered .177 calibre air guns under the Arms Rules, 2016, with the Court holding on the facts before it that the seized air gun fell within Category III(f)(ii) and was not subject to licensing requirements.

Key Takeaway

The Karnataka High Court has quashed the existing prosecution arising from the alleged wild boar hunting incident because cognizance under the Wild Life (Protection) Act had been taken without the complaint of a competent person contemplated by Section 55.

At the same time, the ruling does not amount to a final acquittal on the factual allegation of hunting. The competent prosecuting authority has expressly been given liberty to institute proceedings afresh in accordance with Section 55 and invoke appropriate offences. The Court separately ordered release of the seized .177 calibre air gun, finding it to fall within a category not requiring an arms licence and subjecting its release to safeguards against sale, alteration or non-production when required.

Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

Source: Karnataka High Court

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

www.aadrikaalaw.com