ORDER : 1. This Criminal Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners, being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.05.2010 in C.C.No.141/2009 on the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) and JMFC, Kollegal and its confirmation judgment and order dated 16.06.2014 in Crl.A.No.26/2010 on the file of the District and Sessions Judge at Chamarajanagara, seeking to set aside the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below, wherein the petitioners/accused are convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 9 and 39(a) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act (for short ‘Act’) and 379 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’). Brief facts of the case are as under: 2. It is the case of the prosecution that, on 01.10.2005, at about 9.00 p.m., in the APMC Yard at Kollegala, the petitioners stated to have sold the tiger skin to accused Nos.1 and 2 and the accused Nos.1 and 2 were attempting to dispose of the same for higher price. The said tiger skin was brought in the Maruti Omni car and the said car was parked near Achgal Lodge. Based on the credible information, a case came to be registered against the accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offences stated supra. 3. To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined, in all, 11 witnesses namely PWs.1 to 11 and got marked 8 eight documents namely Exhibits P1 to P8 and also got identified M.Os.1 and 2. The Trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted the petitioners for the offences stated supra. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Appellate Court, the Appellate Court confirmed the judgment of conviction rendered by the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have preferred this revision petition seeking to set aside the concurrent findings. 4. Heard Smt.Manjula D., learned Amicus Curiae on behalf of the petitioners and Shri Rahul Rai K, learned High Court Government Pleader on behalf of the respondent – State. 5. It is the submission of learned Amicus Curiae on behalf of the petitioners that, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court and its confirmation order passed by the Appellate Court require to be set aside as the concurrent findings are perverse, illegal and opposed to facts and law. 6. 5. It is the submission of learned Amicus Curiae on behalf of the petitioners that, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court and its confirmation order passed by the Appellate Court require to be set aside as the concurrent findings are perverse, illegal and opposed to facts and law. 6. It is further submitted that, the petitioners have no connection with the offences. The witnesses even though stated about the petitioners, that they have sold the tiger hide (skin) to accused Nos.1 and 2, it cannot be substantiated by the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. It is further submitted that, unless it is specifically proved that, the accused Nos.3 and 4 have sold the tiger skin to accused Nos.1 and 2, conviction cannot be recorded based on the assumption and presumption. 8. It is further submitted that, the procedure established by law that, Section 55 of the Act has not been followed, the complainant is not authorized to register the complaint and the said complainant has not lodged complaint before the Jurisdictional Magistrate as is required under the Act. Making such submission, learned Amicus Curiae for the petitioners seeks to allow the revision petition and set aside the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below. 9. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader (for short ‘HCGP’) justifying the concurrent findings and submitted that, the respondent / police have seized the tiger skin and arrested the accused and registered the case. The witnesses have consistently supported the case of the prosecution. The Courts below after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted the petitioners. Therefore, there is no infirmity and perversity in the findings recorded by the Courts below. Having submitted thus, the learned HCGP prays to dismiss the petition. 10. Having heard the rival contentions urged by the learned counsels for the respective parties and also perused the concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below and also the entire materials on record, the points which arise for my consideration are: (i) Whether the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below in convicting the petitioners for the offences under Sections 9 and 39(a) of Wild Life (Protection) Act and Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code are justified? (ii) Whether the petitioners have made out grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below for conviction? 11. This Court being a Revisional Court, having regard to the scope and ambit envisaged to appreciate the facts and law, it is necessary to have a cursory look upon the evidence and also the law, to ascertain as to whether any illegality or perversity or error committed by the Courts below in recording the conviction. 12. Before adverting to the facts of the case, it is relevant to refer the provision under Section 55 of the Act, which 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 [(aa) the Member-Secretary, Central Zoo Authority in matters relating to violation of the provisions of Chapter IVA; or] [(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 [subject to such conditions as may be specified by that Government]; or [(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.]” 13. Now, it is relevant to refer the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar v. Murad Ali Khan & Others, (1988) 4 SCC 655 para Nos.12 and 13 read thus: “12. Section 51 of the Act provides for penalties. Violation of Section 9(1) is an offence under Section 51(1). Section 55 deals with cognizance of offences: 55. No court shall take cognizance of any offence against this Act except on the complaint of the Chief Wild Life Warden or such other officer as the State Government may authorise in this behalf. 13. What emerges from a perusal of these provisions is that cognizance of an offence under the “Act” can be taken by a court only on the complaint of the officer mentioned in Section 55. 13. What emerges from a perusal of these provisions is that cognizance of an offence under the “Act” can be taken by a court only on the complaint of the officer mentioned in Section 55. The person who lodged complaint dated June 23, 1986 claimed to be such an officer. In these circumstances even if the jurisdictional police purported to register a case for an alleged offence against the Act, Section 210(1) would not be attracted having regard to the position that cognizance of such an offence can only be taken on the complaint of the officer mentioned in that section. Even where a Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence instituted otherwise than on a police report and an investigation by the police is in progress in relation to same offence, the two cases do not lose their separate identity. The section seeks to obviate the anomalies that might arise from taking cognisance of the same offence more than once. But, where, as here, cognisance can be taken only in one way and that on the complaint of a particular statutory functionary, there is no scope or occasion for taking cognisance more than once and, accordingly, Section 210 has no role to play. The view taken by the High Court on the footing of Section 210 is unsupportable.” On careful reading of the above provision and also dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court conjointly, it makes it clear that, cognizance shall be taken by the Magistrate except on the complaint of the persons mentioned in Section 55 of the Act. The complaint denotes that, it should be filed in consonance with the provision under Section 2(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 14. In the present case, PW.1 being the Deputy Superintendent of Police stated to have lodged the complaint before the jurisdictional Police and the jurisdictional Police have registered the FIR and conducted investigation. The registration of FIR is contrary to the provision of Section 55 of the Act and also contrary to the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to supra. The Deputy Superintendent of Police is not authorised to lodge the complaint under Section 55 of the Act. However, the Courts below failed to take note of the same fact, at the time of considering the evidence and documents on record. The Deputy Superintendent of Police is not authorised to lodge the complaint under Section 55 of the Act. However, the Courts below failed to take note of the same fact, at the time of considering the evidence and documents on record. Having failed to consider the same, resulted in passing of the impugned judgments, therefore, the impugned judgments have to be set aside. 15. In the light of the observations made above, the points which arose for my consideration are answered as under:- Point No.(i) - “Negative” Point No.(ii) - “Affirmative” 16. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:- ORDER (i) The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed. (ii) The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.05.2010 in C.C.No.141/2009 on the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) and JMFC, Kollegal and its confirmation judgment and order dated 16.06.2014 in Crl.A.No.26/2010 on the file of the District and Sessions Judge at Chamarajanagara, are set aside. (iii) The petitioners are acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 9 and 39(a) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act and Section 379 of IPC. (iv) Bail bonds executed, if any, stand cancelled. The Legal Services Authority is directed to pay the remuneration of Rs.5,000/- to the learned Amicus Curiae, forthwith. The assistance rendered by the learned Amicus Curiae is appreciated and the appreciation is placed on record.