Judgment U.C. Dhyani, J. Accused Bharat Ram was tried and was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 51(1-A) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The convict preferred an appeal against the order of conviction, which was dismissed by learned Sessions Judge, Champawat, vide impugned judgment and order dated 04.10.2008. Aggrieved against the same, present criminal revision was preferred by the convict-revisionist. 2) Learned counsel for the revisionist made two fold arguments. Firstly, it was argued by the learned counsel that the search and seizure was made by a Head Constable. The second argument advanced by learned counsel for the revisionist was that the Investigating Officer of the case was also a Head Constable. These facts are not under dispute that a Head Constable conducted search and seizure in this case and another Head Constable conducted investigation of the case. 3) Relevant provision of Section 50 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, provides as under: “50. Power of entry, search, arrest and detention. –(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the Director or any other officer authorized by him in this behalf or the Chief Wild Life Warden or the authorised officer or any forest officer or any police officer not below the rank of a sub-inspector, may, if he has reasonable grounds for believing that any person has committed an offence against this Act…………………………………………………” 4) It, therefore, follows that the Head Constable was not empowered to make search and seizure in respect of any offence punishable under the Act. 5) The Second argument of learned counsel for the revisionist also gains strength in view of sub-Section (8) of Section 50 of the Act. 5) The Second argument of learned counsel for the revisionist also gains strength in view of sub-Section (8) of Section 50 of the Act. The relevant provision is being reproduced here-in-below for convenience: “Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, any officer not below the rank of an Assistant Director of Wild Life Preservation or an officer not below the rank of Assistant Conservator of Forests authorised by the State Government in this behalf shall have the powers, for purposes of making investigation into any offence against any provision of this Act, – (a) to issue a search warrant; (b) to enforce the attendance of witnesses; (c) to compel the discovery and production of documents and material objects; and (d) to receive and record evidence.” Needless to say that the complaint under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, is filed by the Forest Officer, as authorised by the State Government in this behalf. 6) The conviction of the accused-revisionist cannot sustain in view of above grave anomalies committed in relation to search, seizure and investigation. The mandatory provisions of the Act were observed by breach. 7) Howsoever grave the offence may be, this Court has no option, but to allow the criminal revision on the aforesaid grounds alone. 8) The impugned judgment and order dated 04.10.2008 is, therefore, set aside. The conviction and sentence awarded to the accused-revisionist Bharat Ram is also set aside. He is acquitted of the charge of offence punishable under Section 51(1-A) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act. Accused-revisionist is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. He need not surrender. 9) Let a copy of this judgment alongwith lower court records be sent back to the Court below for compliance.