Hyderabad: Telangana high court on Wednesday held that forest officials did not have the authority to investigate offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), even when such allegations arose alongside offences under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. The court, however, clarified that forest authorities were empowered to proceed with investigations limited strictly to violations under the Wildlife Act.Justice J Sreenivas Rao passed the directions recently while hearing a writ petition filed by six persons from Hyderabad challenging a preliminary offence report (POR) registered against them by forest officials of the Mannanur Range in the Amarabad Tiger Reserve, Nagarkurnool district.The March 2022 POR accused the petitioners of offences under Sections 27 and 56 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act and Sections 351 read with 332 and 333 of the IPC for attacking forest staff.According to forest authorities, the incident occurred when a forest protection watcher alleged that the petitioners, allegedly under the influence of alcohol, forcibly entered a restricted tiger reserve area, threatened him, and assaulted him while he was on duty. A vehicle belonging to the petitioners was found near a locked forest check post during prohibited hours, leading to the registration of the POR.The petitioners argued that forest officials lacked jurisdiction to investigate IPC offences and that the allegations did not attract the ingredients of the penal sections invoked. They sought quashing of the proceedings on the ground that forest officers were not “police officers” under the Code of Criminal Procedure.After examining earlier rulings from multiple high courts, the court agreed that forest officials could not investigate or initiate proceedings for IPC offences. It observed that the Wildlife Act provided a separate statutory mechanism and limited the investigative powers of forest authorities to offences under that Act alone. Any investigation into IPC offences had to be conducted by police in accordance with criminal procedure law.However, the court declined to interfere with the proceedings related to the Wildlife (Protection) Act, noting that allegations regarding illegal entry into a tiger reserve and obstruction of forest staff questions that had to be examined during investigation.Accordingly, the high court partially allowed the writ petition, quashing the proceedings only to the extent of IPC offences, while permitting forest officials to continue action under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, in accordance with law.
