ORDER The petitioner is the first accused in C.C.No.82 of 1987 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore. The trial Magistrate has framed charges against the petitioner for offences under Secs.49 and 52 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ punishable under Sec.51 of the Act. 2. The brief facts which led to the prosecution can be summarised as hereunder: It appears that on 4.7.1986 a corpse of an elephant was found in Jahirporathi in Bolampatti Range of Mullangadu Reserve Forest Area. On receipt of information the respondent investigated the matter and it disclosed that the occurrence in which the elephant was shot took place on 16.6.1986. The second accused Mottai Mooppan was arrested on 1.8.1986 and he volunteered a confession statement, which has been marked as Ex.P2, in pursuance of which a gun and elephant hair had been seized under Ex.P3. According to the second accused, in terms of Ex.P2, the first accused had directed him to shoot a deer and get it since he was interested in vension. It is the further statement of the second accused that the petitioner gave him a double-roll gun and four bullets. When the second accused went to the reserve forest, he found only an elephant which he shot dead and came and informed the petitioner about it. The petitioner directed the second accused to get the tusk of the elephant. In the process of removing the tusk of the elephant it appears that the third accused Palani helped the second accused Mottai Mooppan. The third accused Palani was arrested on 17.9.1986 and he volunteered a statement, which has been marked as Ex.P4. Ex.P4 relates to what accused 2 and 3 did together and it does not concern the first accused (petitioner) directly. Obviously, Ex.P4 cannot be used against the petitioner since the third accused has no personal knowledge about what happened between the second accused and the petitioner. On 6.10.1986 the petitioner obtained orders of anticipatory bail from the Court of Sessions, Coimbatore. The complaint dated 26.12.1986 in this case was filed before the trial Court on 30.12.1986. 3. In the complaint the only allegation against the petitioner is that he had abetted the commission of the crime by the second accused by providing him a gun and further directing him to cut the elephant's tusk. 4. The complaint dated 26.12.1986 in this case was filed before the trial Court on 30.12.1986. 3. In the complaint the only allegation against the petitioner is that he had abetted the commission of the crime by the second accused by providing him a gun and further directing him to cut the elephant's tusk. 4. Three witnesses have been examined before the trial Court before the charge was framed. P.W.1 is the Forest Range Officer, who speaks about the above mentioned facts. P.W.2 is the Veterinary Doctor who performed the post-mortem on the dead elephant. P.W.3 is the Forester, who speaks about his assisting P.W.1 for arresting accused 2 and 3 apart from his being present during the postmortem examination of the elephant. The other witnesses given in the complaint do not connect the petitioner with the crime. 5. The trial Magistrate while framing the charge, in his order dated 11th August, 1988, has observed that the petitioner is liable to be charged under Secs.49 and 52 of the Act read with Sec.51, since he had abetted the second accused in the commission of the offence. Though the learned Magistrate has observed that there was material available for framing charges it is fairly conceded by the learned Public Prosecutor before me, that except Exs.P2 and P4 there is no other material against the petitioner. It is obvious that there has been no seizure from the petitioner and his house also has not been searched. There is no substantive evidence whatsoever against the petitioner for charges being framed. 6. Sec.49 of the Act prohibits any person from purchasing a captive animal or wild animal or any animal article, trophy, uncured trophy or meat derived therefrom otherwise than from a dealer or from a person authorised to sell or otherwise transfer the same under the Act. There is practically no material placed before me to connect the petitioner with the ingredients of Sec.49 of the Act, Sec.52 of the Act deals with abetment of offences.. As long as there is no material to show active complicity of the petitioner with the crime in question denoting intentional aiding, it will not be possible to frame a charge under Sec.52 of the Act. No material has been brought to my notice except Exs.P2 and P4 to facilitate framing of a charge against the petitioner. As long as there is no material to show active complicity of the petitioner with the crime in question denoting intentional aiding, it will not be possible to frame a charge under Sec.52 of the Act. No material has been brought to my notice except Exs.P2 and P4 to facilitate framing of a charge against the petitioner. As I have already held, Ex.P4 is of no use and Ex.P2 can have no bearing for abetment unless there is substantive evidence on record to frame a charge. Even Ex.P2 has been retracted by the second accused. Sec.51 of the Act is only the punishing section and it cannot independently stand without Secs.49 and 52, on the facts of this case. I am satisfied that there is no material whatsoever to frame a charge against the petitioner. The charge framed against the petitioner is liable to be quashed. 7. In the result, this petition is allowed and the charge framed against the petitioner as well as the proceedings in respect of the petitioner (first accused) in C.C.No. 82 of 1987 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore, are hereby quashed. B.S. ----- Petition allowed.