Judgment 1. The four petitioners have been convicted under S.51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months by the trial court. On appeal the same has been confirmed by the lower appellate court which the petitioners have challenged in this application. 2. The facts which led to the filing of this application, in short, are these : One Byas Singh, Wild Life Warden in Palamau National Park, submitted a forwarding report on 28-12-1974 to the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate Latehar alleging, inter alia, that while he along with the staff was on patrolling duty in Betla Reserved Forest, he heard a sound of gun shot. When the patrolling party reached the junction of road Nos.2 and 5 they heard some sound of talking of some persons and there they saw that a Bison was lying dead and petitioner 4, Father Chako, was standing with a gun and other petitioners were skinning the dead animal. The patrolling party could catch only petitioner 1 to 3 and it was alleged that petitioner No.4 could manage to escape. 3. The complainant, Byas Singh, prepared a seizure list on the spot and arrested petitioners 1 to 3. Thereafter a complaint was filed on the basis of which the Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, Latehar took cognizance against the petitioners and they were put on trial. The petitioners were charged under S.51 of the Act and the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, after considering the evidence adduced on behalf of the petitioners, convicted them under S.51 of the Act and sentenced as stated above. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No.103/77 which was dismissed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge by his judgment dt. 26-7-1979 which is under challenge. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners vehemently raised a point of law that the complainant had no jurisdiction or no authority to file the complaint. In support of this contention he drew my attention to some of the relevant provisions of the Act, particularly to S.55 of the Act which reads as follows :- "No court shall take cognizance of any offence against this Act except on the complaint of the Chief Wild Life Warden or such other officer as the State Govt. may authorise in this behalf." 6. may authorise in this behalf." 6. Relying on this provision it was seriously argued that no other person except the Chief Wild Life Warden or such other officer who has been authorised by the State Government, can file a complaint upon which the cognizance can be taken. According to him the entire conviction and sentence is bad in law and fit to be set aside because the complaint has not been filed by an officer who was either the Chief Wild Life Warden or the officer authorised under the Act by the State Government. In this connection he also drew my attention to the definition of the Chief Wild Life Warden which has been defined in sub-cl.(7) of S.2 of the Act which reads as follows : "The Chief Wild Life Warden means the person appointed as such under cl.(a) of sub-sec.(1) of S.4". S.4 of the Act deals with the appointment of the Chief Wild Life Warden and other officers. I may indicate here that this point was never raised before the courts below. But, according to him as it is a point of law it can be entertained by this court in its revisional jurisdiction as it cuts the very root of the prosecution case. I considered his argument and allowed him to raise this point. 7. Learned State counsel, in order to meet this point, placed certain relevant provisions of the Act. It was contended by him that cognizance can be taken of any offence against the Act either on the complaint of Chief Wild Life Warden or such other officer as the State Government may authorise in this behalf. Therefore, according to him any officer who has been authorised by the State Government to file a complaint is quite competent under the Act to file such complaint. In this connection he referred to Bihar Wild Life Protection Rules 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 1973 Rules) which have been framed under S.64 of the Act. S.64 of the Act gives power to the State Government to make rules. The State Government may under this power make any rule by notification for carrying out the provisions of the Act in respect of matters which do not fall within the purview of S.63 of the Act. S.64 of the Act gives power to the State Government to make rules. The State Government may under this power make any rule by notification for carrying out the provisions of the Act in respect of matters which do not fall within the purview of S.63 of the Act. S.63 of the Act gives power to the Central Government to frame rules by notification with which I am not concerned in this case. Therefore, it is now clear that the State Government has power to make rules under the rule making power of the Act and by virtue of this power Rules, 1973 were framed and notified vide notification No. G.S.R. 127 dt 14-11-1974. 8. The learned counsel for the State has drawn my attention to R.31 also which reads as follows : - Therefore, in view of this rule even besides Chief Wild Life Warden, the Divisional Forest Officer or the Deputy Conservator of Forests are also entitled to file complaint. In the present case I find that the complaint was filed after obtaining sanction from the Divisional Forest Officer who was authorised to file the complaint. It may be relevant to mention here that S.5(2) of the Act also gives power to the authorities concerned to delegate his power to any of his subordinate officer. 9. Having examined all these relevant provisions, in my view, there is no force in the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners. 10. So far the merit of the case is concerned, it is no doubt concluded by the concurrent findings of the courts below and this court has got very limited power to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below in its revisional jurisdiction. So far as the sentence awarded to these petitioners is concerned, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the occurrence took place in the year 1974 i.e. ten years ago and no fruitful purpose would be served in sending these petitioners, who are on bail, again to jail after a lapse of ten years. He pleaded that the sentence may be converted into some fine. I considered this aspect of the matter. I think the ends of justice would be fully met if the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of three months is altered into a fine of Rs. 50.00 each. He pleaded that the sentence may be converted into some fine. I considered this aspect of the matter. I think the ends of justice would be fully met if the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of three months is altered into a fine of Rs. 50.00 each. The fine must be paid by each of the petitioners within two months from today. If the petitioners fail to pay the fine within the time specified, the modification in the sentence would become inoperative. 11. With this modification in sentence this application is dismissed.