Beyond the Charge Sheet: Why Wildlife Offences Need Statutory Complaints, Not Police Reports

Explainer on this judgment 

Elvish Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

M.M. Sundresh and N. Kotiswar Singh, JJ.

Citation: MANU/SC/0515/2026,2026 INSC 329.

Decided On: 19.03.2026

 1. Cognizance under Wildlife Act: Police Chargesheet Is Not a “Complaint”

The Supreme Court’s starting point is Section 55 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, which clearly says that no court shall take cognizance of any offence under the Act except on a complaint by specified authorities (Director, Chief Wildlife Warden, authorised officers, or a private person after 60‑days’ notice). This must be read with the CrPC definition of “complaint” in Section 2(d), which expressly excludes a police report under Section 173 CrPC. Therefore, a police chargesheet cannot be “converted” into a statutory complaint for the purpose of Section 55, and cognizance taken on such a chargesheet for offences under the 1972 Act is legally impermissible. The Court relies on earlier rulings like Murad Ali Khan and Jeewan Kumar Raut to reaffirm that special statutes with their own cognizance mechanism (Wildlife Act, TOHO, Drugs & Cosmetics, MMDR, etc.) must be strictly followed, and general CrPC provisions yield to this special procedure (generalia specialibus non derogant).

Print Page

Supreme Court: Snake venom or anti-bodies to snake venom will not come within the definition of a psychotropic substanceU/S 2(xxiii) of the NDPS Act

 From a bare reading of the aforesaid provision, the definition of a psychotropic substance Under Section 2(xxiii) of the NDPS Act has a clear import that any substance or any natural material or any salt or preparation of such substance or material has to be included in the list of substances which are specified under the Schedule of the NDPS Act. The conscious omission of the legislature in not placing snake venom or anti-bodies to snake venom under the Schedule of the NDPS Act, would clearly mean that that the said substances could not have been construed as psychotropic substances, by any stretch of imagination, warranting application of the provisions under the NDPS Act. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the recovery of the anti-bodies of snake venom from the co-Accused person(s) will not fall within the purview of a psychotropic substance and, hence, does not warrant invocation of the provisions of the NDPS Act.

{Para 36}

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1661/2026 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 11480/2025)

Decided On: 19.03.2026

Elvish Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

M.M. Sundresh and N. Kotiswar Singh, JJ.

Citation: MANU/SC/0515/2026,2026 INSC 329

Print Page

Whether vehicle seized in wild life protection Act can be confiscated without finding of criminal court?

The aforesaid determination brings me to the factual matrix
of the case in hand. The Authorized Forest Officer in exercise of
power under Section 39(1)(d) of the Act of 1972 has directed
confiscation of the vehicle in favour of the State Government but
the criminal case initiated for commission of offence against the
petitioners under Sections 9,44,51,25,26 (28) of the Act, 1972 is
pending consideration before the jurisdictional criminal court; and
at present there is no finding recorded by the criminal court that
the petitioners' vehicle has been used for committing offence. In
absence of such finding by the competent criminal court, the
provisions of Section 39(1)(d) of the Act, 1972 cannot be invoked
into. The order of the Specified Officer forfeiting the vehicle
without awaiting the decision of the competent criminal court
about use of offending vehicle in above-stated offence is without
jurisdiction and without authority of law in light of the decision
rendered by the Full Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in
the matter of Madhukar Rao (supra).
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
 Writ Petition (Cr.) No. 57 of 201 4

 Mohammad Shoaib, S/o Rafiq Mohammaad, V  The State of Chhattisgarh, 

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal
DATED: 05 /0 4 /201 6

Print Page

Bombay HC: Confessional statement of accused recorded by Deputy Range Forest Officer is not admissible in evidence

It can, thus, be seen that to the extent the Act of 1972
makes provision for a particular aspect as a special Statute, the
same would override and prevail over the general provisions. It is
trite that what cannot be achieved directly, cannot be allowed to
be achieved indirectly. In the present case, there is a specific
procedure laid down in the Act of 1972 for recording of evidence/
confession by an Officer not below the rank of Assistant Director
of Wild Life Preservation or an Officer not below the rank of
Assistant Conservator of Forest, authorised by the State
government in this behalf. Thus, the said provision cannot be
allowed to be circumvented on the ground that the Forest Officers
not being Police Officers could record the confession, as it would
not be hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act. Such a confession, if
not hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act, would certainly be
against the letter and spirit of Section 50(8) of the Act of 1972,
which is a special enactment and which would prevail in the
matter. In such circumstances, I do not find any reason to
interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the learned
Sessions Judge.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 1 OF 2015

State (Through Range Forest Officer Netrawal – Goa)  V Francis Masrenhas,

CORAM :- C. V. BHADANG, J.

Pronounced on : 22ndJune, 2015.
Citation: 2016 ALLMR(CRI)2510

Print Page

Whether bail granted to accused prosecuted for an offence under Wild life protection Act can be cancelled if it was granted without considering seriousness of offence?

One most important factor, which has not been
considered at all by the Additional Sessions Judge is of seriousness
of the crime alleged against the applicant. Seriousness of a crime is

not to be judged by referring to the punishment prescribed alone.
It must be gauged also by its enormity, its ramifications, its extent
and reach, its repercussions and impact on the society or larger
public interest. Crime alleged against the nonapplicant
by all
these parameters is very serious in nature. Prima facie, the
nonapplicant
has shown proclivity to deal in body parts of tiger,
the offence has transnational ramifications and above all has

irreversible adverse impact on the larger public interests.

This case, in my humble opinion, does not
lay down a principle that where the offence involved in the matter
is punishable upto 7 years of imprisonment and when custodial

interrogation is not required, the person accused of that offence
should be released on bail without considering other relevant
parameters. For exercising discretion regarding bail under Section
439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the parameters as discussed at
length in the earlier paragraphs would also have to be considered

together with the observations made in the case of Arnesh Kumar.


IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION No.99 OF 2014

State of Maharashtra (Forest Department) Vs  Shri Suraj Pal s/o. Jagmohan @ Chhacha,


CORAM
: S.B. SHUKRE, J.
DATE : 12 th DECEMBER, 2014 .

Print Page

To what extent provisions of Criminal procedure Code are applicable to proceeding under Wild life protection Act?

 The scheme of Section 50 of the Wild Life Act makes it abundantly clear that Police Officer is also empowered to investigate the offences and search and seize the offending articles. For trial of offences, Code of Criminal Procedure is required to be followed and for that there is no other specific provision to the contrary. Special procedure prescribed is limited for taking cognizance of the offence as well as powers are given to other officers mentioned in Section 50 for inspection, arrest, search and seizure as well of recording statement. The power to compound offences is also conferred under Section 54. Section 51

provides for penalties which would indicate that certain offences are cognizable offences meaning thereby police officer can arrest without warrant. Sub-section (5) of Section 51 provides that nothing contained in Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or in the

Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 shall apply to a person convicted of an offence with respect to hunting in a sanctuary or a national park or of an offence against any provision of Chapter 5A unless such person is under 18 years of age. The aforesaid specific provisions are contrary to the provisions contained in Code of Criminal Procedure and that would prevail during the trial. However, from this, it cannot be said that operation of rest of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure are excluded.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Hon'ble Justice M.B.Shah and Hon'ble Jusitce  B.N.Agarwal.

MOTI LAL  Vs. CENTAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 

Reported in 2002 AIRSCW 1626 = AIR 2002 SC 1691

Print Page

Report Of Director Of Wildlife Institue is not admissible as per section 293 of CRPC in Absence of notification

According to Section 293 of the Cr.P.C., the reports 

of certain Government Scientific Experts are per se 

admissible, which have been specified therein.  The office of 

the Director, Wildlife Institute of India, is not specified 

therein, but it can be specified by way of a notification by 

the Central government under Section 293(4)(g) of the Cr.P.C. 

No such notification has been placed on record to show that 

the said Scientific Expert was specified by a notification as 

an Expert within the provisions of Section 293 of the Cr.P.C.  

Thus, the report in question Ext.PW-2/D was not per se 

admissible, which cannot be relied upon to base conviction of 

the respondent. No such copy of the notification was placed 

on the record or shown during the course of arguments and as 

such the said report cannot be relied upon to prove the guilt 

of the respondent. 

HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

State of H.P.     vs.  Mohammod Aslam Wani   

Dated : 13.7.2010

Coram:  Mr.Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge.

Cr.A.  No. :   557 of 2003

Print Page