ORDER : This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of Criminal Complaint Case No. 2/2012 registered under Sections 51/51(1A) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kolasib. 2. Facts of the case may be briefly noted. 3. Petitioner No. 1 is the driver of the vehicle bearing registration No.HP-20D/1827, whose registered owner is Shri Avtar Singh, a resident of Una District in the State of Himachal Pradesh. Petitioner No. 2 is the Manager of M/s. Freight Carriers (India) Pvt. Ltd., having its registered office at Kolkata and local office at Aizawl. M/s. Freight Carriers (India) Pvt. Limited is engaged in the business of transportation of goods throughout the country by road and has branch offices in different parts of the country. 4. The above Company hired the aforesaid vehicle for transportation of different goods from Guwahati to Aizawl for a sum of Rs. 28,500.00. 5. One MOU Enterprises, a general order supplier of Howrah, West Bengal, booked 4 bags of PVC button materials with the Kolkata Office of the above Company to be delivered to M/s. Roma Enterprise, Tuikual Road, Aizawl, Mizoram from Kolkata. Since there were not enough goods to book one whole truck for transportation of the goods from Kolkata to Aizawl, the Kolkata Office of M/s. Freight Carriers (India) Pvt. Ltd. sent the above consignment to its Guwahati Office. The said 4 bags were unloaded at Guwahati and re-loaded in the above vehicle HP-20D/1827 for onward transportation to Aizawl. The said truck also carried other goods from Guwahati to Aizawl. 6. The said truck was intercepted at Vairengte Forest Check Gate on 20.1.2012. The Forest officials led by the Vairengte Forest Range Officer searched the said vehicle and recovered 90 kgs. of Chinese Pangolin (Mainis pentadactyla) scales. The said Officer seized the above items along with the vehicle as Chinese Pangolin is a prohibited item enlisted in Part-I of Schedule I to the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (Act). Petitioner No. 1 was arrested and the vehicle was also seized. 7. Initially no one claimed the prohibited items. Subsequently, respondent No. 2 Shri Zirduha came forward and informed petitioner No. 2 that the above vehicle was hired by his office for carrying various goods to Aizawl. 8. Petitioner No. 1 was arrested and the vehicle was also seized. 7. Initially no one claimed the prohibited items. Subsequently, respondent No. 2 Shri Zirduha came forward and informed petitioner No. 2 that the above vehicle was hired by his office for carrying various goods to Aizawl. 8. Petitioners did not know that the said 4 bags contained the above prohibited items as the consignment record indicated that the bags contained PVC button materials. In such circumstances, petitioner No. 2 submitted FIR before Aizawl Police Station. Respondent No. 2 was arrested by Aizawl Police personnel when he had personally come to the petitioner No. 2 claiming the prohibited items. Respondent No. 2 was thereafter handed over to the respondent No. 1, who is the Divisional Forest Officer, Kolasib Forest Division. 9. Respondent No. 1 as the complainant lodged a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kolasib on 27.01.2012 under Sections 51/51(1A) of the Act, wherein petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 were named as accused, stating about the facts and circumstances leading to the recovery of the above prohibited items. The complaint charged accused No. 2 Shri Zirduha of having committed the offence under Sections 39/40/48A/49/49B (a) of the Act and accused No. 2 of having committed offence under Sections 39/40/48A/49 of the Act. 10. The above complaint was registered as Criminal Complaint No. 2/2012. Petitioner No. 1 was subsequently enlarged on bail. The seized vehicle was also released on furnishing of adequate surety. 11. By order dated 23/11/2012, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kolasib discharged accused No. 2. However, in respect of accused No. 1 (petitioner No. 1 herein), learned Chief Judicial Magistrate observed that there is ground for presuming that the accused had committed an offence under the Act. Accordingly, it was directed that charge against accused No. 1 would be framed on the next date. 12. Aggrieved, petitioners have filed the present petition seeking the relief as indicated above. 13. This Court by order dated 29.01.2013 had issued notice and as an interim measure stayed the aforesaid order dated 23.11.2012. 14. Heard Mr. Zochhuana, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. B. Lalramenga, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1. Also heard Mr. Rualkhuma Hmar learned counsel for respondent No. 2. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent No. 2 is the prime accused. Basic allegation of transportation of prohibited items is against him. 14. Heard Mr. Zochhuana, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. B. Lalramenga, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1. Also heard Mr. Rualkhuma Hmar learned counsel for respondent No. 2. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent No. 2 is the prime accused. Basic allegation of transportation of prohibited items is against him. He submits that the prime accused having been acquitted, proceeding further with the petitioner No. 1 would not be justified. Petitioner No. 1 is only the driver of the vehicle and he had no knowledge about the transportation of such prohibited items. Therefore, he cannot be charged with having conscious possession of prohibited items. Further more, there is no element of mens rea in respect of petitioner No. 1 and in the absence of mens rea, charging him with commission of criminal offence would not arise. He has referred to various sections of the Act as well as various documents placed on record including the statement of respondent No. 2 to stress on the culpability of respondent No. 2 and to highlight the innocence of petitioner No. 1. He submits that this is a case where on the basis of the available materials there can be no conviction of the petitioner No. 1 and, therefore, compelling him to face the ignominy of a criminal trial, that too, in a far away place would not be justified. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the following decisions- 1) AIR 1966 SC 43 Nathulal v. State of Madhya Pradesh. 2) AIR 1977 SC 403 Smt. Parmeshwari Devi v. The State and Another. 3) (2002) 7 SCC 419 : ( AIR 2002 SC 3343 ) Avtar Singh and Others v. State of Punjab. 4) (2005) 1 SCC 478 : ( AIR 2005 SC 268 ) Central Bureau of Investigation v. Akhilesh Singh. 16. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 on the other hand submits that no case for quashing of the criminal complaint has been made out by the petitioners. There are prima facie materials against petitioner No. 1 which would justify a criminal trial against him. In- so far discharge of accused No. 2 is concerned, learned counsel submits that for good and valid reason, he was discharged. Therefore, petitioner No. 1 cannot seek or derive any advantage from the discharge of accused No. 2. There are prima facie materials against petitioner No. 1 which would justify a criminal trial against him. In- so far discharge of accused No. 2 is concerned, learned counsel submits that for good and valid reason, he was discharged. Therefore, petitioner No. 1 cannot seek or derive any advantage from the discharge of accused No. 2. He submits that petitioner No. 1 would have full opportunity to defend himself in the trial wherein he can prove his innocence. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of this petition. 17. Submissions made by learned counsel for respondent No. 1 have been supported by learned counsel for respondent No. 2. Additionally, he submits that petitioners have not challenged the discharge of accused No. 2. Nor has the State challenged such discharge. Therefore, the discharge of accused No. 2 has attained finality. Each accused stands on a different footing and their individual culpability will be judged on the basis of materials against each one of them. Therefore, petitioner No. 1 has to prove his own innocence and cannot seek advantage of the discharge of respondent No. 2 (accused No. 2). 18. Submissions made have been considered. Also perused the materials on record. 19. Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the High Court has inherent powers to make such orders as may be considered necessary to give effect to any order under this Code or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. However, such a wide power, which can also be invoked suo motu, has to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection. The High Court under Section 482 Cr. P.C. or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can quash an FIR or a criminal complaint if it appears to the Court that the FIR or the criminal complaint does not disclose commission of any criminal offence. The High Court under Section 482 Cr. P.C. or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can quash an FIR or a criminal complaint if it appears to the Court that the FIR or the criminal complaint does not disclose commission of any criminal offence. The broad parameters for exercising such power for quashing of FIR or criminal complaint has been succintly explained by the Apex Court in the well known case of State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : ( AIR 1992 SC 604 ) where, by way of illustration, various categories of cases have been mentioned wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. As the law on this subject is well settled, a restatement of the same is considered not necessary. 20. Before proceeding further, a few relevant provisions of the Act may be briefly referred to. Under Section 39, wild animals found dead or killed, animal article, trophy or uncured trophy or meat derived from any wild animal, vehicle used for committing an offence under the Act and seized shall be the property of the Central Government. No person without the previous permission in writing of the Chief Wild Life Warden or the authorised officer shall keep in possession or transport such Government property. Under Section 40 (2A), no person other than a person having a certificate of ownership, shall acquire or possess any captive animal, animal article, trophy or uncured trophy specified in Schedule I or Part II of Schedule II, except by way of inheritance. Section 48A imposes restriction on transportation of wild life whereas Section 49 prohibits purchase, receipt or acquiring of any captive animal, wild animal or any animal article, trophy, uncured trophy or meat derived therefrom. Section 51 provides for imposition of penalty on any person who contravenes any provision of the Act. Offence committed in relation to any animal specified in Schedule I may attract punishment for a term which shall not be less than three years but may extend to seven years and also with fine which shall not be less than Rs. 10,000/-. Section 51 provides for imposition of penalty on any person who contravenes any provision of the Act. Offence committed in relation to any animal specified in Schedule I may attract punishment for a term which shall not be less than three years but may extend to seven years and also with fine which shall not be less than Rs. 10,000/-. Under Section 57 there is a presumption of guilt in respect of persons found in possession, custody or control of any captive animal, animal article, meat, trophy, uncured trophy etc. Section 57 is an exception to the general rule of presumption of innocence applicable in respect of an accused in criminal jurisprudence. Section 57 is as under:- 57. Presumption to be made in certain cases.- Where, in any prosecution for an offence against this Act, it is established that a person is in possession, custody or control of any captive animal, animal article, meat, trophy, uncured trophy, specified plant, or part or derivative thereof it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, the burden of proving which shall lie on the accused, that such person is in unlawful possession, custody or control of such captive animal, animal article, meat [trophy, uncured trophy, specified plant, or part or derivative thereof]. 21. Chinese Pangolin (Mainis pentadactyla) is a listed mammal in Part I of Schedule I to the Act. 22. Having broadly noticed the relevant legal provisions, the complaint may now be looked into. For better appreciation, the complaint is quoted in its entirety hereunder:- In pursuant to a reliable information received that the said vehicle (mentioned in Column No. 3 of this Complaint Sheet) illegally transported a number of Chinese Pangolins (Mainis pentadactyla) scales from Guwahati to Aizawl, Shri Chuauzika, R.O., Vairengte Forest Range, rushed to Vairengte Check Gate on 20.01.2012 and stopped the vehicle. By virtue of the power vested in him under Section 50 of WP Act, 1972 and as per Govt s Notification No. B. 11012/9/84-FST dated 17th September, 1986, he searched and checked the vehicle and he found the illegal Chinese Pangolin s Scales of 90 kgs. approx. and he accordingly seized the same inasmuch as the said S/A falls under Schedule-I, Part-I of the WP Act, 1972. Shri Chuauzika, R.O., Vairengte Forest Range also seized the Truck Vehicle LPT 1613 B/R No. HP 20D/1827, its ignition key and Regn. approx. and he accordingly seized the same inasmuch as the said S/A falls under Schedule-I, Part-I of the WP Act, 1972. Shri Chuauzika, R.O., Vairengte Forest Range also seized the Truck Vehicle LPT 1613 B/R No. HP 20D/1827, its ignition key and Regn. Certificate of the vehicle for which a Seizure Memo was given to the driver i.e., the accused No. 1 mentioned under Col. No. 2 of Complaint Sheet who was not initially arrested by him. Initially, there was no one to claim for the said prohibited items. However, during course of investigation, one person namely Shri Zirduha S/o Vancheuva of Ramhlun Venglai, Aizawl, Mizoram, was produced by the Aizawl Police to the Office of the DFO, Kolasib. The reason why the Aizawl Police apprehended and produced Shri Zirduha before DFO, Kolasib on 23.01.2012 was due to the FIR lodged by Shri Ram Udgar Roy, S/o Subhak Lal Roy (L) R/o Madhubani, Bihar, Manager, M/S Freight Carriers, Zarkawt, Aizawl, who stated that the 4 bags sent from Kolkata to Aizawl which was stated as PVC Button materials was claimed by Shri Zirduha. However, instead of the button materials, the said 4 bags contained the said illegal items which were seized by the said Range Officer, E&F Deptt., Vairengte. Hence, Shri Ram Udgar Roy lodged the FIR against Shri Zirduha who caused such a big trouble to his Agency/Company. Thereafter, Aizawl PS apprehended Shri Zirduha and handed over him to the office of the DFO, Kolasib inasmuch as the case pertaining to the said illegal transport and seizure of items mentioned under Col. No. 3 in the Complaint Sheet has been going on in the hands of the E&F Deptt., Kolasib Division. After taking the statement of Shri Zirduha, he was released on execution of a bond by him. Thereafter, Shri Chuauzika, Range Officer, Vairengte Forest Range, Kolasib Forest Division took the statement of Shri Ram Udgar Roy, Manager of M/S. Freight Carriers who stated that there is no one except Shri Zirduha to claim the said 4 bags of illegal items and that the Consignment letter for the said 4 bags was the exact bags seized by him. Consignment letter No.RP-427 AZL dated 2.1.2012 and photo copy of the Tax Invoice No. ME/294/11-12 dated 3.1.2012 were also seized from the said Shri Ram Udgar Roy and seizure memo was given to him. Consignment letter No.RP-427 AZL dated 2.1.2012 and photo copy of the Tax Invoice No. ME/294/11-12 dated 3.1.2012 were also seized from the said Shri Ram Udgar Roy and seizure memo was given to him. It was also known that the original copy of the Tax Invoice No. ME/294/11-12 dated 3.1.2012 was hid and kept separately by the accused No. 1 and the same was also seized accordingly. Thereafter, the investigation revealed that the said accused No. 2, Shri Zirduha had an actual knowledge about the illegal transport of the Chinese Pangolin s (Mainis pentadactyla) Scale of approx. 90 kgs. and that he is the person in whose favour the same were sent. Hence, he is charged to have committed the offence/s under Sections 39/40/48-A/49/49-B(a) of WP Act, 1972 and the accused No.1, Jagbar Singh is also charged to have committed the offence/s under Sections 39/40/48-A/49 of WP Act, 1972. Under the said circumstances and after the investigation revealed such a situation, there is a likelihood of absconding from the competent Court/authority and also that the accused persons will not duly answer any summons or other proceedings which may be taken against them, the accused persons were arrested on 27.01.2012 and they are brought before this Hon’ble Court to face their trial as per law. It is humbly prayed that the accused persons may be punished under Sections 51/51(1A) of WP Act, 1972‌. 23. A careful perusal of the complaint would clearly show that as per the complaint, it was revealed during investigation that accused No. 2 had actual knowledge about the illegal transportation of Chinese Pangolin and that he was the person to whom the said consignment was sent. The statements of accused No. 2 and petitioner No. 2 recorded by the investigating authority clearly show, prima-facie, that accused No. 2 was fully aware of the transportation of the prohibited items through the aforesaid truck in the consignment sent by the 4 bags which was booked for carrying PVC button materials. Infact, he came forward to collect the said items. Being the driver of the vehicle and in view of the legal presumption under Section 57 of the Act, petitioner No. 1 has also been charged under the mentioned sections. Thus, a clear triable case is made out against both the accused persons. 24. Infact, he came forward to collect the said items. Being the driver of the vehicle and in view of the legal presumption under Section 57 of the Act, petitioner No. 1 has also been charged under the mentioned sections. Thus, a clear triable case is made out against both the accused persons. 24. Law is settled that at the time of framing of charge all that the criminal Court has to examine is whether there are enough materials on record which may justify holding of a criminal trial against the accused. At this stage, the criminal Court is not required to see whether the materials on record are sufficient to ensure conviction of the accused. It will be enough if the materials are sufficient to sustain a criminal trial. Applying the above principle, a perusal of the complaint prima facie discloses a triable case against both the accused persons. Again, while framing charge, the criminal Court is not required to give detailed reasonings but in the case of discharge at the stage of framing of charge, it is incumbent on the criminal Court to give reasons to justify discharge of the accused. Furnishing of reasons would disclose application of mind and would also be the live link or the nexus between such application of mind and the ultimate decision of discharge. 25. In the present case, the order dated 23.11.2012 does not disclose any such application of mind. No reasons have been given as to why the accused No. 2 has been discharged. A reading of the said order discloses that learned counsel for accused No. 2 made a prayer for his discharge to which learned counsel for the complainant had no objection. Accordingly, accused No. 2 was discharged. Such an approach of the learned Court below cannot be appreciated. 26. In view of the above, deliberation on the cited judgments is considered not necessary. 27. Thus Court is of the view that the discharge of accused No. 2 is not at all justified. Moreover, petitioner No. 1 cannot also take advantage of such discharge. Since this is a petition under section 482 Cr. P.C., Though there is no specific challenge to the discharge of accused No.2, Court would like to interfere with the same as it is of the view that trial of accused No.2 along with accused No.1 would secure the ends of justice. Since this is a petition under section 482 Cr. P.C., Though there is no specific challenge to the discharge of accused No.2, Court would like to interfere with the same as it is of the view that trial of accused No.2 along with accused No.1 would secure the ends of justice. Petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 (both accused) should face the criminal trial wherein they will get all opportunity to prove their innocence. Accordingly, order dated 23.11.2012 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kolasib in Criminal Complaint No. 2/2012 to the extent of discharging accused No. 2 (respondent No. 2) is interfered with and quashed. Learned trial Court is directed to frame charge against both the accused persons i.e. petitioner No. 1 and respondent No. 2 and proceed with the trial in accordance with law. 28. Revision petition is accordingly disposed of in the above terms. 29. No cost. Order accordingly.