ORDER : Revision petition filed against the order passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ranni in C.C.No.465 of 1998, whereby the accused persons were discharged under Section 245(1) Cr.P.C. 2. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor dealing with forest cases and the learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala State Electricity Board. 3. The allegation in the complaint filed by the Forest Range Officer, Goodrical Range against the respondents are as follows: The respondents are the Assistant Engineer and Sub Engineer attached to the Kerala State Electricity Board, Moozhiyar. 11 KV lines were drawn from Moozhiyar to Kochupampa through Aranamoozhy area of the reserve forest, within the limits of Plappally forest station. The lines were drawn at a low level from the ground. It was negligently kept at a low level and as a result of which two elephants came into contact with the electric line and they were electrocuted. It is therefore contended that the respondents are liable to be punished for offences under Sections 9 and 52 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (in short, the Act). Fact that 11 KV electric lines were placed at a height of about two meters from the ground, cannot be disputed, as learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that this fact is evident from the Mahazar prepared. Further fact that two elephants were electrocuted, also cannot be disputed. According to the learned Standing Counsel for KSEB, it is submitted that chance of elephants pulling down the line by using their trunk, cannot be brushed aside. However, there is no material to find all these contentions because the incident happened in a reserve forest. 4. Coming to the legal questions raised, Section 9 of the Act is punishment for hunting. It reads thus: “Prohibition of hunting.- No person shall hunt any wild animal specified in Schedules I, II, III and IV except as provided under section 11 and section 12.” 5. For understanding this Section, the definition of 'hunting' in Section 2(16) of the Act will have to be looked into. It reads thus: “Prohibition of hunting.- No person shall hunt any wild animal specified in Schedules I, II, III and IV except as provided under section 11 and section 12.” 5. For understanding this Section, the definition of 'hunting' in Section 2(16) of the Act will have to be looked into. It reads as follows: “Hunting”, with its grammatical variations and cognate expressions, includes,- (a) killing or poisoning of any wild animal or captive animal and every attempt to do so; (b) capturing, coursing, snaring, trapping, driving or baiting any wild or captive animal and every attempt to do so; (c) injuring or destroying or taking any part of the body of any such animal or, in the case of wild birds or reptiles, damaging the eggs of such birds or reptiles, or disturbing the eggs or nests of such birds or reptiles.” 6. Section 52 deals with punishment for abatement. On a reading of Section 2(16) of the Act, it can be seen that 'hunting' is a very vide expression and the matters mentioned in the definition are also included in the expression 'hunting'. However, on going through the provisions in the definition, it can be seen that a mental element is required to constitute 'hunting'. Keeping a live wire at low level by itself may not fall within the definition of hunting, though it may be a rash or negligent act on the part of the respondents. The respondents cannot be legally prosecuted for hunting in the light of the facts pleaded in the complaint. I make it clear that if any other provision of law is attracted in this case, finding in this case will not stand in the way of the Government proceeding against the respondents. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, I find that the court below was right in discharging the accused for offences punishable under Sections 9 and 52 of the Act. Therefore, the revision petition is dismissed.