Case Note & Summary
The applicants, original accused nos. 1 to 4, were convicted by the Joint Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amravati, for contravention of Sections 40(1)(2), 48(A), 44 and 49(B) punishable under Sections 51 and 51(1-A) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. The conviction was upheld by the Sessions Judge, Amravati, in Criminal Appeal No. 64/2016. The prosecution case was that in March 2014, accused nos. 5 and 6 hunted a Panther (a Schedule I animal) after it killed a bull belonging to accused no.5. They removed its skin and two teeth. Later, through intermediaries, the skin was brought to the applicants who were found in possession of it. The forest officers raided and recovered the skin from the applicants' vehicle. The trial court convicted all accused, and the appellate court confirmed the conviction. In revision, the High Court held that the prosecution had proved the recovery of the skin from the applicants' possession, and the burden to prove lawful possession or license was on the accused under Section 57 of the Act, which they failed to discharge. The court found no perversity in the concurrent findings and dismissed the revision application.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Wild Life Offences - Possession of Scheduled Animal Skin - Sections 40, 44, 48A, 49B, 51 Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 - The applicants were convicted for possessing skin and teeth of a Panther (Schedule I animal) without license - The court held that the prosecution proved recovery of skin from applicants' possession and that the burden to prove license or lawful possession lies on the accused under Section 57 of the Act - Conviction upheld (Paras 1-10).
B) Evidence - Recovery of Contraband - Credibility of Witnesses - The court found the testimony of forest officers and panch witnesses credible, and the recovery of skin from the applicants' vehicle was proved beyond reasonable doubt - Minor contradictions did not affect the prosecution case (Paras 5-8).
C) Criminal Procedure - Revision - Scope of Interference - The High Court in revision cannot re-appreciate evidence unless there is perversity or illegality - No such error found in concurrent findings of trial court and appellate court (Para 10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the applicants for contravention of Sections 40(1)(2), 48(A), 44 and 49(B) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the criminal revision application, upholding the conviction of the applicants for contravention of Sections 40(1)(2), 48(A), 44 and 49(B) punishable under Sections 51 and 51(1-A) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.
Law Points
- Wild Life (Protection) Act
- 1972
- Sections 40
- 44
- 48A
- 49B
- 51
- Scheduled Animal
- Panther
- Possession of Skin
- Burden of Proof
- License Requirement
Case Details
2023 LawText (BOM) (12) 150
Criminal Revision Application No. 94 of 2022
Shri P.V. Navlani for applicants, Ms Kavita Bhondge, Additional Public Prosecutor for non-applicant
Firoz Shah s/o Babbu Shah, Dinesh s/o Gajanan Belkhede, Prashant @ Golu s/o Shriram Nadekar, Pawan s/o Vasantrao Tayade
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal revision application challenging conviction under Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.
Remedy Sought
The applicants sought to quash the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court and upheld by the appellate court.
Filing Reason
The applicants were convicted for possessing skin and teeth of a Panther without license, in contravention of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.
Previous Decisions
The trial court convicted the applicants on 9/3/2016 in Regular Criminal Complaint Case No. 1022/2014. The appellate court dismissed the appeal on 28/3/2022 in Criminal Appeal No. 64/2016.
Issues
Whether the conviction of the applicants under Sections 40(1)(2), 48(A), 44 and 49(B) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 is sustainable.
Whether the prosecution proved the recovery of Panther skin from the applicants' possession beyond reasonable doubt.
Whether the burden of proof regarding lawful possession or license lies on the accused under Section 57 of the Act.
Submissions/Arguments
The applicants argued that the prosecution failed to prove the recovery of the skin from their possession and that the witnesses were not credible.
The State argued that the recovery was proved and the burden to show license or lawful possession was on the accused, which they failed to discharge.
Ratio Decidendi
Under Section 57 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, when a person is found in possession of any specified animal or part thereof, the burden of proving that the possession is lawful or that a license exists lies on the accused. The prosecution proved the recovery of Panther skin from the applicants' possession, and the applicants failed to discharge the burden. Therefore, the conviction is sustainable.
Judgment Excerpts
The applicants/original accused nos. 1 to 4 have questioned the legality, correctness and propriety of the judgment and order dated 28/3/2022 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Amravati in Criminal Appeal No. 64/2016, thereby dismissing the appeal by which the applicants had challenged the judgment and order dated 9/3/2016 passed by the learned Joint Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amravati in Regular Criminal Complaint Case No. 1022/2014.
The learned Magistrate has convicted the applicants for contravention of Sections 40(1)(2), 48(A), 44 and 49(B) punishable under Sections 51, 51, 51 and 51(1-A) respectively of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.
Procedural History
The trial court convicted the applicants on 9/3/2016. The applicants appealed to the Sessions Court, which dismissed the appeal on 28/3/2022. The applicants then filed the present criminal revision application before the High Court, which was heard on 18/12/2023 and decided on 21/12/2023.
Acts & Sections
- Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972: 9, 40(1)(2), 44, 48(A), 49(B), 51, 51(1-A), 57
