PYARALAL Vs. STATE DELHI ADMN
LAWS(SC)-1995-1-126
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: DELHI)
Decided on January 18,1995

PYARE LAL Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF DELHI Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

Sakeer Hussain VS. Forest Range Officer [LAWS(KER)-1999-6-31] [REFERRED TO]
SOMNATH VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2014-6-17] [REFERRED TO]
PREM SINGH VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-2017-3-75] [REFERRED TO]
BAHADUR RAM VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND [LAWS(UTN)-2019-12-65] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)The appellant who has been found guilty under Section 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 was owner of M/s. Haryana Novelty Emporium, Delhi. On 1-9-1979, the Wild Life Inspector, PW-1 on information conducted a search of the premises and found lion shaped trophies of Chinkara skins meant for sale. A complaint was lodged stating that the provisuion of Sections 44 and 49 punishable under Section 51 have been contravened. Plea of the accused has been that those trophies were made out of goat skin, after being painted and that the skins were not that of wild animals mentioned in the Schedule of the Act.
(2.)The trial Court accepted the prosecution case mainly relying on the evidence of PW-1, and convicted the appellant and sentenced him to undergo 6 months' R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.50/- (sic) in default to undergo 2 months' R.I. His appeal and further revision were dismissed. Hence the present appeal.
(3.)From the above stated facts, it can be seen that the contravention is that of provisions of section 44 and 49 of the Act. The evidence of PW-1 establishes that the appellant was found in possession of trophies. Section 44 prohibits any dealing in such trophies without a licence and section 49 of the Act lays down that no person shall purchase, receive or acquire any captive animal, wild animal other than vermin or any animal article, trophy, uncured trophy, or meat derived therefrom otherwise than from a dealer or from a person authorised to sell or otherwise transfer the same under this Act. PW-1 is an experienced and specially trained officer. His evidence thus establishes that the accused was in possession of those trophies and all the Courts below have accepted the same.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.