https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153253 Cognizance of offences under the Wild Life (Protection) Act is restricted to complaint-based prosecution by the specified authority, so a parallel police investigation does not attract Section 210 CrPC. The complaint alleging killing of a scheduled wild animal and removal of tusks disclosed a prima facie offence, and the High Court could not quash it under Section 482 by assessing evidence prematurely. Prosecution under the Act was also not barred by Section 429 IPC or double jeopardy, because the two offences have distinct statutory ingredients and are not identical in law. The quashing orders were therefore set aside and cognizance restored. en-us Mon, 10 Oct 1988 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 19 Dec 2017 15:58:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153253 Cognizance of offences under the Wild Life (Protection) Act is restricted to complaint-based prosecution by the specified authority, so a parallel police investigation does not attract Section 210 CrPC. The complaint alleging killing of a scheduled wild animal and removal of tusks disclosed a prima facie offence, and the High Court could not quash it under Section 482 by assessing evidence prematurely. Prosecution under the Act was also not barred by Section 429 IPC or double jeopardy, because the two offences have distinct statutory ingredients and are not identical in law. The quashing orders were therefore set aside and cognizance restored. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 10 Oct 1988 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=153253