ORDER : This petition is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered by the District and Sessions Judge, Chamarajanagara in Crl.A.No.7/2010 dated 23.06.2014 convicting the accused for the offence under Sections 39 and 40 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act which is punishable under Section 51 of the said Act. By the impugned judgment, the first Appellate Court, set-aside the judgment passed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) & JMFC, Gundlupet in C.C.No.494/2005 dated 27.10.2009 acquitting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 39, 40, 44, 49(a)(b), 50, 51 of the Wild Life Protection Act. 2. The petitioner is arraigned as accused No.1. Since accused No.2 died during the pendency of the proceedings, the case against him stood abated. By the impugned judgment, the petitioner/accused No.1 was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of three years for each of the offences punishable under Sections 39 and 40 and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for each of the offences and in default to pay the fine amount, to undergo SI for a period of eight months for each of the defaults. The sentence of imprisonment was ordered to be run concurrently. 3. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that complainant CW.1 – PSI received a credible information regarding illegal transportation of tiger hide for the purpose of sale. On 28.8.2005, while the complainant and his staff were keeping a watch, at about 4 a.m. on B.N. Road, in front of Surabhi Hotel in Gundlupet Town, the accused persons were found transporting tiger hide worth Rs.2 lakh in a car bearing Regn.No.KA12M1267, for the purpose of sale, without any licence or permit. Further, it is alleged that many years back, father of accused No.1 had hunted a tiger in Niligiri forest area and thereafter, had peeled its skin, made a trophy of the tiger and had kept in their residential house. In pursuance of the act of the accused, CW.1Ravi Kumar being the PSI filed a complaint. On the basis of the said complaint, Cr.No.183/2005 came to be registered and after thorough investigation, charge sheet was laid against Accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 39, 40, 44, 49(a)(b), 50 and 51 of the Wild Life Protection Act. In pursuance of the act of the accused, CW.1Ravi Kumar being the PSI filed a complaint. On the basis of the said complaint, Cr.No.183/2005 came to be registered and after thorough investigation, charge sheet was laid against Accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 39, 40, 44, 49(a)(b), 50 and 51 of the Wild Life Protection Act. Subsequent to laying of charge sheet against the accused before the trial Court, charges were framed against the accused for the aforesaid offences. Subsequently, in order to establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution in all examined several witnesses as PWs.1 to 17 and got marked documents as per Exs.P1 to P15 and MOs.1 to 5 were also got marked. Subsequent to closure of the evidence on the part of the prosecution, accused persons were examined as required under Section 313 of Cr.P.C for enabling the incriminating statement appeared against them. But they declined the truth of the prosecution evidence adduced so far. They did not come forward to adduce any defense evidence as contemplated under Section 233 of Cr.P.C. The trial Court, after hearing the arguments advanced on behalf of prosecution and the defense counsel and after scrutinizing the entire material evidence on record, acquitted the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 39, 40, 44, 49 (a)(b), 50, 51 of Wild Life Protection Act. The said judgment came to challenged before the first Appellate Court by the State in Crl.A.No.7/2010. The first appellate Court vide judgment dated 23.6.2014 convicted the accused person for the aforesaid offences which is incorporated in the operative portion of the order. It is this judgment which is under challenge in this petition by urging various grounds. 4. Sri Chandarashekara K.A., learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the trial Court is justified in coming to the conclusion that without complaint from a competent person, the Court cannot take cognizance of the offences alleged under the Wild Life Protection Act and taking cognizance, without there being any complaint, vitiates the entire proceedings. Further, it is contended that except the evidence of official witnesses, the independent witnesses including the panch witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and so also, the seizure mahazars are not proved. Further, it is contended that except the evidence of official witnesses, the independent witnesses including the panch witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and so also, the seizure mahazars are not proved. The mahazar witnesses have turned hostile and they have not supported the case of the prosecution and there was no reason for them to turn hostile, if the property was seized in their presence. The trial Court has rightly held that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case against the accused persons and was right in acquitting the accused persons of the charged offences. He has taken me through the evidence of PW.1 who is said to be HC, Forest Squad. He has stated in his evidence that on 24.08.2005 at around 6.00 a.m. in the morning he had accompanied CW.1 - PSI and CW.3. CW.1 had got credible information regarding sale of forest products and skin of wild life animals. They left Bangalore at 6.00 a.m. in a Trax vehicle bearing registration No.KA 01 – G3804 to Gundlupet. They reached at 11.00 a.m. in the morning. In Gundlupet, they met CW.4 and CW.5 and were informed about the matter and they took them along. CW.1 secured panchas namely Basavaraju and Chikkaraju. All of them were waiting near Surabhi Hotel. At that time, an ash colour Fiat Car came from Gundlupet side to go towards Mysore side at 4.00 p.m. and the said car was stopped by CW.1 by signal. The car was bearing Registration No. KA 12 M 1267. When the said car was searched, they found one skin of a tiger having been kept under pillow cover. Accused Nos.1 and 2 were present in the car. CW.1 asked them as to whether they have got any permit to carry the said skin, but they said they were not having any such permit. On further enquiry, it was made known that one was Boraiah of Lakkur village and other as Paramesha of Gundlupet village. Further, CW.1 drew the mahazar as per Ex.P1 at the spot and seized the tiger skin and also the car. It is said that the tiger skin was worth Rupees one lakh fifty thousand. PW.1 identified the accused persons and also identified MO.1 which was seized. Further, CW.1 drew the mahazar as per Ex.P1 at the spot and seized the tiger skin and also the car. It is said that the tiger skin was worth Rupees one lakh fifty thousand. PW.1 identified the accused persons and also identified MO.1 which was seized. In the incisive cross-examination by the defense counsel, PW.1 stated that his officer has got powers to directly register the case against the accused in their forest division. He will not get information as to who was selling the wild animals skin to whom, but that will be in the knowledge of his officers. Further, there is document to show that on 24.8.2005, he was on duty and has marked his attendance. He denied that fifteen days back itself, he and PSI had gone to the house of accused Boraiah at Lakkeri village. Further, he denied that he is falsely deposing that the accused were carrying it for the purpose of sale. He also denied that MO-1 – tiger skin was seized on the basis of the information secured from the house of Boraiah of Lakkeri village. He also denied that at that time, accused Boraiah showed the documents to prove that the tiger skin had come to his share from his father. PW.2 – Dore Raj, another HC attached to the forest flying squad and PW.3 – Ravi Kumar have reiterated the evidence of PW.1 relating to Ex.P1 mahazar conducted by PW.3 and also having seized MO.1 – tiger hide and MO.2 – pillow cover and MO.3 – rifle and MOs.4 and 5 – cartages. Ex.P1 is the mahazar said to have been conducted by PW.3 – PSI in the presence of PWs.1 and 2, wherein PW.9 Chikkaraju has subscribed his signature wherein he was secured to act as panch witness to Ex.P1. But he did not support the case of the prosecution and so also, the fulcrum of Ex.P1 – Mahazar conducted by PSI. PW.10 – Basavaraju was also secured by the IO to act as panch witness in respect of Ex.P1 and P5 – Mahazars said to have been conducted by the IO during the course of investigation. But he did not support the case of the prosecution and so also, the fulcrum of Ex.P1 – Mahazar conducted by PSI. PW.10 – Basavaraju was also secured by the IO to act as panch witness in respect of Ex.P1 and P5 – Mahazars said to have been conducted by the IO during the course of investigation. But the prosecution has placed much reliance on the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 and so also evidence of PWs.7 and 8 and in addition to that much credence has been given to the evidence of PWs.14, 15, 16 and 17 who are the official witnesses. The entire case has been revolving around the evidence of these witnesses, but their evidence runs contrary to the evidence of PWs.9 and 10 who are the panch witnesses in respect of Ex.P1 and P5Mahazars. Despite of this, the first Appellate Court has reversed the judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial Court and convicted the accused for the offences aforesaid. Therefore, the entire evidence of prosecution has to be reappreciated, if not, greater injustice will be cause to the accused who is a grave man of charge. The case in Cr.No.183/2005 came to be registered by recording an FIR as per Exhibit P7. But in order to prove the guilt of the accused though the prosecution has examined in all several witnesses and also got marked several documents at Exhibits P1 to P13, but only the official witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution in respect of the seizure of properties at MO-1 to MO-5. MO-1 is the tiger skin which is aged about 70 years and it is stated that the same fell to the share of the accused. But however, in the present case on hand, even without a complaint, the cognizance of the offences has been taken and hence the Trial Court had rightly held that the conviction was not suitable and hence had acquitted the petitioner. But however the Appellate Court proceeded to convict the petitioner. Further, when the mahazar witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution, the Appellate Court has erred in convicting the accused. 5. But however the Appellate Court proceeded to convict the petitioner. Further, when the mahazar witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution, the Appellate Court has erred in convicting the accused. 5. The second limb of argument is that no court shall take cognizance of any offence against this Act on a complaint of any person other than those mentioned in clause (a), clause 2(aa), clause 3(ab), clause (ac), clause clause (b), clause 2(bb) or clause (c) of Section 55 of the Wild Life Protection Act. Section 55 of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 reads thus: “55. Cognizance of offences.—No court shall take cognizance of any offence against this Act except on the complaint of any person other than— (a) the Director of Wild Life Preservation or any other officer authorised in this behalf by the Central Government; or 2[(aa) the Member-Secretary, Central Zoo Authority in matters relating to violation of the provisions of Chapter IVA; or] 3[(ab) Member-Secretary, Tiger Conservation Authority; or (ac) Director of the concerned tiger reserve; or] (b) the Chief Wild Life Warden, or any other officer authorised in this behalf by the State Government 2[subject to such conditions as may be specified by that Government]; or 2[(bb) the officer-in-charge of the zoo in respect of violation of provisions of section 38J; or] (c) any person who has given notice of not less than sixty days, in the manner prescribed, of the alleged offence and of his intention to make a complaint to the Central Government or the State Government or the officer authorised as aforesaid.” But in the instant case, CW.1 - Ravi Kumar being the PSI filed a complaint and PW7 Shivappa G who registered the case in FIR at Exhibit P7 and thereafter held mahazar at Exhibit P8 in the presence of PW-12 and PW-13 and PW-17 being the I.O. who laid the charge-sheet against the accused. But PWs 1, 2 and 3 said to be the panch witnesses at Exhibit P8, did not support the case of the prosecution to any extent in respect of the fulcrum of the said mahazar. Their evidence runs contrary to the evidence of PW7. Despite of it, the First Appellate Court has reversed the acquittal judgment rendered by the Trial Court. But the case in Cr.No.183/2005 came to be registered by recording an FIR as per Exhibit P7. Their evidence runs contrary to the evidence of PW7. Despite of it, the First Appellate Court has reversed the acquittal judgment rendered by the Trial Court. But the case in Cr.No.183/2005 came to be registered by recording an FIR as per Exhibit P7. But in order to prove the guilt of the accused, though the prosecution has examined in all several witnesses and so also got marked several documents at Exhibits P1 to P13, but the official witnesses have only supported the case of the prosecution in respect of the seizure of properties MO-1 to MO-5. MO-1 is the Tiger skin which is 70 years old and same fell to the share of the accused. The said MO-1 property was seized from the possession of the accused Boraiah being an Ex-Military person alleging that he was in possession of MO-1 Tiger skin or tiger hide and was illegally transporting the same in a fiat car without having any licence or permit. But merely because the law was set into motion by recording an FIR as per Exhibit P7, it cannot be said that the offence has been proved unless Exhibit P1 mahazar as well as Exhibit P8 mahazar is established by independent witnesses. But however, it is seen that the aforesaid panch witnesses have turned hostile. Therefore, the case of the prosecution is supported only by the evidence of the official witnesses. It is stated that MO-1 tiger skin was in possession of the accused. But however, the learned counsel contends that the seizure mahazar witnesses PW-9 and PW-10 to the case of the prosecution did not even know the contents of the mahazar. The prosecution did not make any effort to examine any other independent witnesses. Merely because the official witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution, it cannot strengthen the case of the prosecution to convict the accused. Merely because the tiger skin was found in his possession and the same having been seized under Exhibit P1 of the Mahazar, the fact should not be lost sight of that the same had fallen to his share in a partition among the family members. Therefore, the conviction is sustainable on the strength of the evidence of official witnesses only when corroborated by the evidence of independent witnesses. It is the rule of prudence to test the veracity of the evidence of the official witnesses. Therefore, the conviction is sustainable on the strength of the evidence of official witnesses only when corroborated by the evidence of independent witnesses. It is the rule of prudence to test the veracity of the evidence of the official witnesses. But Exhibit P1 is the mahazar said to have been conducted by PW-3 being the PSI of Forest Squad. But mahazar witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution in respect of Exhibits P1, P5 and P8. PW-11 Bellaiah who is also one of the panch witnesses to Exhibit P5 did not withstand the said mahazar, since his evidence contradicts the evidence of PW-17 I.O. who laid the charge-sheet against the accused. PW-12 and PW-13 had been secured to act as panch witnesses to Exhibit P8 of the mahazar. But they have also not supported the case of the prosecution and their evidence runs contrary to the evidence of PW-17. The entire case of the prosecution revolves around the evidence of PW-1 to PW-3 who are official witnesses. PW8 Venkatachalachar is the Head Constable who recorded FIR as per Exhibit P7 based upon the evidence of PW-14 to PW-17. PW-14 is the Village Accountant who had issued RTC at Exhibit P10 relating to the farmhouse situated in the landed property of the accused. PW-16 being the RFO who confirmed the MO-1 Tiger hide said to have been transported by accused in a Fiat car. These evidence on the part of the prosecution have not been supported on the basis of independent witnesses. FSL report at Exhibit P13 and evidence of PW-12 and PW-13 revolves around MO-1 Tiger hide which fell to his share in a partition which was effected among his family members, despite of which the First Appellate Court has reversed the acquittal judgment rendered by the Trial Court. The Trial Court had rightly come to the conclusion in respect of Section 55 of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 relating to cognizance of the offences taken place. The Trial Court has appreciated the entire evidence on record relating to the ingredients of the aforesaid offences and rightly had come to the conclusion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused. MO-1 Tiger hide which was found in the possession of the accused had fallen to his share in a partition which was effected among the family members. MO-1 Tiger hide which was found in the possession of the accused had fallen to his share in a partition which was effected among the family members. In this regard accused had also produced Xerox copy of the same for the purpose of perusal. Hence, unless the ingredients of Section 39 and 40 of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 are established, it cannot be held that accused has committed the alleged offences. But under Section 40 of the Act, accused is required to make a declaration regarding the animal skin of which he is in possession of the same. Power is vested with the Chief Wild Life Wardon or the authorized officer to permit the said person to keep the said skin in his possession. Section 39 of the Wild Life Protection Act prescribes certain wild animals to be the property of the Central Government. The evidence of PWs 15, 16 and 17 runs contrary to the evidence of PW-9 and PW-10 and further contradictory to the evidence of PW-12 PW-13 in respect of Exhibit P1 of the Mahazar and Exhibit P4 and P5 and so also the mahazar at Exhibit P8 relating to the seizure of MO-1 to MO-5. The prosecution is required to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt in respect of the mahazar at Exhibit P1. Though PW-9 and PW-10 have been subjected to examination but both these witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution in as much as they turned hostile to the prosecution theory. There is no sufficient cogent and corroborative evidence to prove the guilt of the accused for the alleged offences beyond all reasonable doubt. It is settled principle that when there are two views available, one which is beneficial to the accused ought to be extended to him by giving benefit of doubt. This is the contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner and further emphasized that re-appreciation of the entire material evidence on record is required to come to a conclusion as to whether the First Appellate Court has convicted the accused by erroneously appreciating the evidence of the official witnesses. Therefore, the learned counsel contends that in this petition, it requires re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record. Therefore, the learned counsel contends that in this petition, it requires re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record. The Trial Court though on a proper appreciation of the evidence on record has acquitted the accused of the alleged offences, the Appellate Court has proceeded to convict the accused based on the evidence of official witnesses. Therefore, he contends that the petition be allowed and the impugned judgment rendered by the First Appellate Court be set aside and the petitioner be acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 39 and 40 of the Wild Life Protection Act by confirming the acquittal judgment rendered by the Trial Court in C.C.No.494/2005 dated 27.10.2009. 6. Per contra, learned HCGP for the State justifies the order passed by the Appellate Court and contends that the Appellate Court on a proper appreciation of the entire evidence as well as the material on record, has rightly set aside the acquittal judgment rendered by the Trial Court and has convicted the accused under Sections 39 and 40 of the Wild Life Protection Act punishable under Section 51 of the said Act, which judgment does not call for interference in this petition. Hence he prays for dismissal of this petition at the threshold. 7. On a careful consideration of the contentions raised by both the counsel for the petitioner/accused and the learned HCGP for the State, the evidence adduced by the witnesses and the material on record, it is seen that the prosecution has placed much credence on the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 who are official witnesses. Further, the independent witnesses including the panch witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution as referred to supra and so also, the seizure mahazars have not been proved. The mahazar witnesses have turned hostile and they have not supported the case of the prosecution. If the property was in fact seized in their presence, there was no reason for them to turn hostile. Furthermore, the complaint has not been filed by a competent person. Hence, without complaint from a competent person, the Court cannot take cognizance of the offences alleged under the Wild Life Protection Act and taking cognizance, without there being any complaint, has vitiated the entire proceedings. Furthermore, the complaint has not been filed by a competent person. Hence, without complaint from a competent person, the Court cannot take cognizance of the offences alleged under the Wild Life Protection Act and taking cognizance, without there being any complaint, has vitiated the entire proceedings. Though the trial Court has rightly held that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused persons and had acquitted the accused persons of the charged offences, the Appellate Court on a re-appreciation of the evidence, has proceeded to convict the accused, which has resulted in a miscarriage of justice. Ex.P1 mahazar said to have been conducted by PW.3 – PSI in the presence of PWs.1 and 2, wherein PW.9 Chikkaraju had subscribed his signature as panch witness to Ex.P1. But he did not support the case of the prosecution and so also, the fulcrum of Ex.P1 – Mahazar conducted by PSI. The prosecution has placed much credence on the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 and so also evidence of PWs.7 and 8 and in addition to that much credence has been given to the evidence of PWs.14, 15, 16 and 17 who are the official witnesses. The entire case though revolves around the evidence of these witnesses, but their evidence runs contrary to the evidence of PWs.9 and 10 who are the panch witnesses in respect of Ex.P1 and P5Mahazars. Despite of this, the first Appellate Court has erred in reversing the judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial Court and convicted the accused for the offences aforesaid. In order to prove the guilt of the accused though the prosecution has examined several witnesses and also got marked several documents at Exhibits P1 to P13, but only the official witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution in respect of the seizure of properties at MO-1 to MO-5. MO-1 is the tiger skin which is aged about 70 years which is said to have fallen to the share of the accused. 8. But however, in the present case on hand, in view of the fact that even without a complaint, the cognizance of the offences has been taken, the Trial Court had rightly held that the conviction was not suitable and hence had acquitted the petitioner. But however the Appellate Court proceeded to convict the petitioner, which has resulted in a miscarriage of justice. But however the Appellate Court proceeded to convict the petitioner, which has resulted in a miscarriage of justice. Further, when the mahazar witnesses as well have not supported the case of the prosecution, the Appellate Court has erred in convicting the accused. PWs 1, 2 and 3 said to be the panch witnesses to Exhibit P8, had not supported the case of the prosecution to any extent in respect of the fulcrum of the said mahazar. The prosecution did not make any effort to examine any other independent witnesses. Merely because the official witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution, it cannot be said that the guilt of the accused is proved. Further, the conviction is sustainable on the strength of the evidence of official witnesses only when it is corroborated by the evidence of independent witnesses. Hence, I find that the conviction rendered by the Appellate Court cannot be sustained in the eye of law. The Trial Court had rightly come to the conclusion in respect of Section 55 of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 relating to cognizance of the offences taken place on appreciating the entire evidence on record relating to the ingredients of the aforesaid offences and had rightly acquitted the accused of the alleged offences. Though PW-9 and PW-10 have been subjected to examination but both these witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution in as much as they turned hostile to the prosecution theory. There is no sufficient cogent and corroborative evidence to prove the guilt of the accused for the alleged offences beyond all reasonable doubt. It is settled principle that when there are two views available, one which is beneficial to the accused ought to be extended to him by giving benefit of doubt. Hence, in view of the above reasons, I find that the ingredients of Sections 39 and 40 of the Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 have not been established by the prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the accused. 9. At a cursory glance of the evidence of the witnesses, it is seen that there are inconsistencies and contradictions on the part of the prosecution. When there are inconsistencies and contradictions and the evidence of official witnesses are not corroborated by the evidence of other independent witnesses, the benefit of doubt shall accrue in favour of the accused. 9. At a cursory glance of the evidence of the witnesses, it is seen that there are inconsistencies and contradictions on the part of the prosecution. When there are inconsistencies and contradictions and the evidence of official witnesses are not corroborated by the evidence of other independent witnesses, the benefit of doubt shall accrue in favour of the accused. Hence, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of petitioner – Accused No.1 for the offences under Sections 39 and 40 of the Wild Life Protection Act, beyond all reason able doubt. Consequently, the petitioner deserves to be acquitted. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER Crl.RP.No.479/2014 preferred by Accused – petitioner under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. Consequently, the judgment rendered by the First Appellate Court in Crl.A.No.7/2010 dated 23.06.2014 allowing the appeal and thereby reversing the judgment of acquittal rendered by the Trial Court in C.C.No.494/2005 dated 27.10.2009 is hereby set-aside. Consequently, the judgment of acquittal rendered by the Trial Court in C.C.No.494/2005 dated 27.10.2009 is hereby confirmed. The accused – petitioner herein is acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 39 and 40 of the Wild Life Protection Act. The bail bond if any executed by the petitioner/accused shall stand cancelled. If any fine amount is deposited by the petitioner in pursuance of the order passed by the Appellate Court, the same shall be refunded to him, on proper identification.