9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (12) TMI 1133 - HC - Indian LawsSeizure of wildlife materials - 3 pieces of tiger skin - 13.4 kgs. of elephant tusks - 1 piece of baby rhino horn - 290 pieces of tiger nail - it was alleged by the officer of the DRI that the present petitioner failed to produce any valid documents for legal possession/acquisition/harboring of the goods so recovered - HELD THAT - The deposition of the 5 witnesses relied upon by the prosecution the documents so relied upon by the prosecution which were admitted in evidence as also the findings of the Ld. Courts below. While assessing the evidence of the prosecution witnesses I do not find any material except the oral deposition of the witnesses particularly PW1 from where it would be evident that the said witness in his official capacity led the DRI officials for conducting search and seizure at the above mentioned said premises. No documents relating to search authorization or movement register reflecting that the DRI officers on the basis of information they received had been to the residence of the present petitioner are available. The prosecution in order to prove its case was duty bound to connect the materials which they claimed to have received from the DRI Authorities. No document in evidence has been produced regarding the materials and/or the documents being seized/reseized by the complainant of the instant case being the Authorized Ranger attached to the office of the Conservator of Forest Wildlife Circle from the DRI Authorities. The connecting document and/or transfer of document being absent failed to establish any official change of custody of the seized articles which were the subject matter of the case. On the evidence so relied upon by the prosecution it is not a case of mere irregularity but raises a grave suspicion regarding the manner and mode of search and seizure alleged to be conducted at the said premises and it would not be fit and proper to arrive at a finding of guilt on the basis of the search and seizure. The petitioner is acquitted from the charges under Section 40(2) of the Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972 read with Section 51(1-A) of the said Act. The petitioner is on bail he shall therefore be discharged from the bail bonds - Application allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of search and seizure. 2. Admissibility and reliance on the statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act. 3. Compliance with procedural requirements under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. 4. Jurisdiction and authority of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) in conducting the investigation. 5. Validity of the conviction under Section 40(2) of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of Search and Seizure: The case originated from a search conducted by DRI officers at the petitioner's residence, resulting in the recovery of wildlife materials. However, the court noted a lack of documentary evidence such as search authorization or movement registers to substantiate the DRI's presence at the petitioner's premises. Additionally, no prior information was provided to local police authorities, raising doubts about the legitimacy of the search and seizure. 2. Admissibility and Reliance on the Statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act: The court observed that the lower courts heavily relied on the petitioner's statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act. However, it was emphasized that such statements, while judicial proceedings under the Customs Act, cannot be the sole basis for conviction under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. The court referenced precedents (Noor Aga vs. State of Punjab & Anr., and The State of Gujarat vs. Anwar Osman Sumbhaniya & Ors.) to support the principle that statements under Section 108 require corroboration by material evidence. 3. Compliance with Procedural Requirements under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972: The prosecution failed to produce evidence of proper transfer and custody of the seized materials from DRI to the Wildlife Authorities. The absence of connecting documents and official custody change raised significant doubts about the integrity of the evidence. The court highlighted the necessity for procedural compliance to establish a valid chain of custody, which was not demonstrated in this case. 4. Jurisdiction and Authority of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI): The court noted that while the DRI conducted the initial search and seizure, the subsequent investigation was carried out by the Wildlife Authorities. The court clarified that the issue was not about the DRI's authority to conduct the search but rather the admissibility and procedural correctness of the evidence obtained. 5. Validity of the Conviction under Section 40(2) of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972: The lower courts convicted the petitioner under Section 40(2) read with Section 51(1-A) of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. However, the court found that the foundation of this conviction was flawed due to the reliance on the uncorroborated statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act and procedural lapses in the investigation. The court concluded that the evidence presented was insufficient to uphold the conviction. Conclusion: The judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate and affirmed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge were set aside. The petitioner was acquitted of the charges under Section 40(2) of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, read with Section 51(1-A) of the said Act. The court emphasized the importance of proper procedural adherence and corroborative evidence in securing a conviction.
|
