Case No. – 82/11
DELHI DISTRICT COURT
BENCH: Hon’ble SH. Devendra Kumar Sharma J.
DATE OF JUDGEMENT: 02 June 2015
RELEVANT ACTS/SECTIONS:
Section 39 of wildlife protection Act, 1972 (Wild animals, etc., to be Government property)
Section 40 (2) of wildlife protection Act, 1972 (Declaration)
Section 44 of wildlife protection Act, 1972 (Dealings in trophy and animal articles without license prohibited)
Section 49 of wildlife protection Act, 1972 (Purchase of captive animal, etc., by a person other than a licensee)
Section 51 of the wildlife protection Act, 1972 (Penalties)
Section 55 of the wildlife protection Act, 1972 (Cognizance of offences)
Section 313 of Cr.P.C (Power to examine the accused)
BACKSTORY
In this, the case was lodged by wildlife Inspector Ms. Arti Singh against Arif Qureshi, under section 55 of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 against the accused of violation of section 40(2)/49 & 49B (1) of the said Act, punishable under section 51 of the Act. The facts of the case are that on 18.11.1996, on receipt of information that one-person i.e. accused is dealing/selling Shahtoosh shawls at his shop no.41, Delhi Hatt, opposite to INA Market, New Delhi; a raid was organized by Wild Life Preservation Office (NR). Accused was discovered present during the raid and five shahtoosh shawls were recovered from his ownership. It is additionally claimed that charged likewise admitted that he was managing in Shahtoosh shawls yet neglected to deliver any license/permit required to deal in shahtoosh shawls. Recuperated shawls were affirmed to be made of Tibetan Antelope/Chiru’s wool which is a Scheduled animal and determined in Schedule−I of the Act. Since the exchange or assets of the said shawls are restricted under the Act, the case properties were seized and after finishing the examination, the current grievance was documented against the denounced.
From the statement of witnesses as well as a statement of accused recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C., the raid, search, seizure of the case property, and capture of the denounced from the spot have been demonstrated. The supplication of the accused that the examination for the case close by should have been directed by the ACP isn’t maintainable in any way. For this situation, no such FIR was got enrolled. Subsequently, the topic of examination of the case close by the ACP doesn’t emerge at all and according to arrangements of segment 50 of the Act.
Finally, the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused that five shawls were recovered from the possession of accused, on the said date, time, and place. From the statement of Prosecution witness 1 and Prosecution witness 2 and quantity of recovered shawls, it was clear that the accused was indulged in the business of Shahtoosh shawls without any permit or license
JUDGEMENT
Accused is held guilty and is convicted for the offence under these sections 44/49 and 49B (1) of the Wildlife Protection Act.