Case No. – 110/2018
DELHI DISTRICT COURT
BENCH: Hon’ble Sh. Manoj Jain J.
DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 31 July 2018
RELEVANT ACTS/SECTIONS
Section 49B of the wildlife protection act 1972 (Prohibition of dealings in trophies, animal articles, etc. derived from scheduled animals)
Section 50 of the wildlife protection act 1972 (Power of entry, search, the arrest is defined)
Section 51 of the wildlife protection act 1972 (Penalties)
Section 313of Cr.P.C. (Power to examine the accused)
Section 108 of customs act 1962 (Power of gazette officer of customs)
BACKSTORY
In this case, it’s been said that one consignment having 27 bales was received at Indira Gandhi International Air Cargo Complex, New Delhi through the custom-house agent for customs clearance (shipping bill no: 3907553) dated 12-08-2009. It was sent by M/s Misger Art Emporium firm and the consignee was M/s Hidhab Muscat Trading P.O Box no: 1137, P.C.131, Al- Hamriyah, Muscat, Sultanate of Oman. The box was containing woollen blended shawls of pashmina. The box was checked by the customs officer Ram Niwas Banker and he referred the matter to wildlife department. Then he sent the package no:15 and package no:22 to the department. Ms. Aarti Singh, the inspector of the wildlife department examined the shawls and said that two shawls in package no:22 were of shahtoosh as they were having hair of Tibetan antelope. She told the customs to detain the consignment. The customs said the wildlife department to check all the packages and confirm it by 100% surety about the shawls. The other package no: 23 was also examined and they got two more shahtoosh shawls. All the 4 shawls were seized vide panchama dated 13-08-2009. And all the shawls were sent to the degrading laboratory for further examination. Dr. Goyal from the wildlife forensic bureau said that such three shawls were containing the hair of antelope.
Farooq Ahmed Misger was recorded under section 108 of customs act. The complaint was given by Sh. Dixit and said that the appellant has been trading illegal items that were prohibited under section 49B and a complaint was laid before the court dated 08-02-2011. Because the complaint was given by an officially charged custom officer, the court dispended the examination of the officer and summoned the accused in a cognize offence. Pre-charged evidence was submitted and seven witnesses were questioned.
Farooq admitted that the package was his and he is working as managing partner in the firm of misger. He also said that he bought the pashmina fabrics from the local market and that was given to the villagers for dyeing, embroidery, and packing and then it was exported, he also claimed that the shawls were of pashmina fabrics and not of shahtoosh and this case has been manipulated. The trial court went with the opinion of the forensic expert. And the appellants were not able to prove why they were falsely implicated in the matter when there was no animosity towards them. By saying he was not responsible for the act happened Farooq can’t able to escape his liability for shipping shahtoosh shawls.
JUDGEMENT
The court said that evidence is important than verbal denial and Farooq didn’t present any pieces of evidence for the same. The court said they were guilty for the offence under section 51 of wildlife protection act 1972. On 09-02-2018 Appellant 1 (Misger), was the partner of the firm was ordered to give a fine of Rs.50,000/- and appellant 2 (Farooq) has been sentenced to undergo SI for years and a fine of Rs10,000/- should be given. And on 31-07-2018, it’s been said that under section 428 of Cr.P.C., if any undergone by him during investigation and dependency of the matter would be liable to set off. The personal bond and surety bond submitted by Farooq got cancelled.