Telangana High Court Clarifies Jurisdiction of Forest Officials in Criminal Cases
In a significant ruling, the Telangana High Court has explicitly held that forest officials do not possess the authority to investigate offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC). This decision comes even in scenarios where such allegations are intertwined with violations under the Wildlife (Protection) Act of 1972. The court, however, affirmed that forest authorities retain their power to conduct investigations strictly confined to offences under the Wildlife Act itself.
Background of the Case and Judicial Directions
Justice J Sreenivas Rao delivered these directions while adjudicating a writ petition filed by six individuals from Hyderabad. The petitioners were challenging a preliminary offence report (POR) registered against them by forest officials from the Mannanur Range within the Amarabad Tiger Reserve, located in Nagarkurnool district. The POR, dated March 2022, accused the petitioners of multiple offences under Sections 27 and 56 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, as well as Sections 351 read with 332 and 333 of the IPC, related to an alleged attack on forest staff.
Incident Details and Allegations by Forest Authorities
According to the forest authorities, the incident unfolded when a forest protection watcher reported that the petitioners, purportedly under the influence of alcohol, forcibly entered a restricted area of the tiger reserve. They allegedly threatened and assaulted the watcher while he was performing his official duties. Adding to the suspicions, a vehicle belonging to the petitioners was discovered near a locked forest check post during prohibited hours, which led to the registration of the POR against them.
Petitioners' Arguments and Legal Grounds
The petitioners contended that forest officials lacked the necessary jurisdiction to investigate IPC offences. They argued that the allegations did not meet the essential ingredients of the penal sections invoked under the IPC. Furthermore, they sought the quashing of the proceedings on the basis that forest officers are not recognized as "police officers" under the Code of Criminal Procedure, thereby limiting their investigative powers.
Court's Analysis and Ruling on Jurisdictional Limits
After a thorough examination of earlier rulings from multiple high courts, the Telangana High Court concurred with the petitioners' stance. The court observed that the Wildlife (Protection) Act establishes a separate statutory mechanism, which explicitly restricts the investigative powers of forest authorities to offences under that Act alone. Consequently, any investigation into IPC offences must be conducted by the police, in strict accordance with the established criminal procedure law.
Partial Allowance of the Writ Petition
While the court declined to interfere with the proceedings related to the Wildlife (Protection) Act, noting that allegations of illegal entry into a tiger reserve and obstruction of forest staff require proper examination during investigation, it partially allowed the writ petition. The high court quashed the proceedings only to the extent of IPC offences, while permitting forest officials to continue their action under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, in accordance with the law. This ruling underscores the clear demarcation of authority between forest officials and police in handling criminal matters.
