Radhakrishnan Vs.

State of Kerala

Court : Kerala

..... . petitioner is the 2nd accused in o.r. no.3 of 2014 of kalady forest range office, registered
for the offences punishable under sections 2(16)(c), 39(3)(a), 44, 49(b)(iii), 51 and section 52
of the wild life (protection) act.2. the allegation against the petitioner and the other accused
is that on 15.10.2014 at 11.30pm, they had attempted to ..... as well.4. the learned counsel for
the petitioner has pointed out that he is entitled to the protection of the 2nd proviso to
section 44(1) of the wild life (protection) act, 1972. as per the said proviso, it has been made
clear that the said sub section shall not apply to the dealers in tail feathers of peacock and
articles made therefrom and the manufacturers ..... tail feathers of peacock, the proviso will
not apply. when it is admittedly tail feathers of peacock, it prima facie seems that the dealers
and manufacturers of such items are protected. even though, a case has been forwarded by
the learned additional dgp that the -3- b.a. no. 7909 of 2014 petitioner is not a dealer, i am of
the .....

Feb 05 2013 (HC)

Namendra Singh Chauhan Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh

Court : Madhya Pradesh

..... applicant apprehending his arrest in crime case por no.24298/2010, registered in forest
range badi (sighori reserve) district raisen for having committed offences punishable under
sections 9, 41, 27 of wild life protection act and section 52 of indian forest act. it is the case
of applicant that he is a government servant and his jeep was stolen when he was out of his
headquarters between 16 ..... of `30,000/- (rupees thirty thousand) with one 3 surety in the
like amount to the satisfaction of arresting officer. subject to complying with the mandatory
provisions as contemplated under section 438(2) of the criminal procedure code. this order
shall be in force for a period of 60 days, within which period applicant shall seek regular bail.
the application stands allowed and .....

Apr 01 2014 (HC)

Biresh Kumar Singh Vs. State of M.P. and Others

Court : Madhya Pradesh

..... on record. it reveals from the impugned order that accused pinku kewat has been
prosecuted for the offence punishable under sections 27, 29, 39, 51 of the wild life
(protection) act and under sections 2, 41, 52 of the indian forest act. it further reveals from
the impugned order that the chief judicial magistrate, sidhi had already received an
information under ..... impugned order and submitted that if the offence has been registered
under indian forest act along with the offence under wild life (protection) act, and if the
magistrate, having jurisdiction to try the offences, has received the intimation under section
52 (4) of the indian forest act regarding initiation of proceedings for confiscation of the
property, then the concerning magistrate has ..... cases, the offences were not registered under
the indian forest act. but, in the instant case, the property has been seized not only under wild
life (protection) act, but also under indian forest act and there is a specific bar of jurisdiction
of the courts under section 52-c of the indian forest act as mentioned hereinabove. since as
per impugned order, the ..... section 52(4) of the indian forest act in regard to the fact that the
confiscation proceedings have been initiated in connection with seized vehicle .....

Sep 05 2013 (HC)

Banshilal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh

Court : Madhya Pradesh

..... of cr.p.c. for the quashment of the case registered at crime no.179/2009 by the non-
applicant against the applicant under section 9, 51, 52 of the wild life (protection) act, 1972
(in short the 'act of 1972').2. the sole but forceful contention made by learned counsel for 2
m.cr.c. no.8582 of 2013 the applicant is that admittedly the charge ..... for the parties, i am of
the view that this application deserves to be allowed.5. the m.p. rules of 1974 are framed
pursuant to section 55 of the principal act, namely, wild life (protection) act, 1972 (in short
'the act of 1972'). rule 55 of the m.p. rules of 1974 reads thus : 55. cognizance of offences.-
the following officers shall be authorised to make ..... complaints under section 55, namely :-
(a) chief wild life warden; (b) wild life wardens; (c) forest range officers.6. admittedly, none
of the aforesaid officer has filed the charge 3 m.cr ..... ) to (c). in the present case, clause (b)
of the said section is applicable. the said section reads as under :- 55. cognizance of
offences.- no court shall take cognizance of any offence against this act except on the
complaint of any person other than -- (a) xxx xxx xxx (b) the chief wild life warden, or any
other officer authorised in this behalf by the state .....

Mar 17 2005 (HC)

Arvind Kumar Dube S/O Shri Parmeshwari Dayal Dube Vs. State of U.P. Th ...

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : 2005(3)AWC2970

..... driver of the truck namely sugreev singh was arrested by the forest officer and he was
challaned for the offences punishable under section 26/52 ka, kha and ga of the forest act and
section 29, 39, 50 and 51 of the wild life protection act 1972 as amended in the year 1991. it
is contended that the allegations of the prosecution is that wood of the forest .....

Jul 09 2001 (HC)

State of Maharashtra Vs. Gajanan D. Jambhulkar

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 2002BomCR(Cri)71; 2002CriLJ349

..... the carcass of the black buck. offence was registered against the present respondent and
the other accused punishable under sections 9 and 39 of the wild life (protection) act, 1972
as well as under section 52 of the indian forest act and under sections 3, 4/25 of the arms act
vide crime no. 3037/98.4. the other steps taken by the investigating officer while
investigating the said offences ..... that he did concede that the provisions of the forest act
would not be applicable for deciding the custody of the vehicle under the wild life protection
act.6. section 2(14) of the wild life protection act defines 'government property' to mean,
any property referred to in section 39 or section 17h. section 39 of the wild life protection
act, and in particular clause (d) of section 39 lays down that, vehicle, vessel, weapon, trap or
tool ..... , with the permission or licence, as is referred to in sections 11 and 12, we do not
propose to dilate on these two sections of the wild life protection act.8. the offences under
the wild life protection act are indeed serious. protection of wild life is a fundamental duty
of every citizen and the act casts an obligation on every citizen to protect wild life. entry at
item no. 2 of part i of the first .....

Jun 22 2015 (HC)

State (Through Range Forest Officer Netrawal – Goa) Vs. ...

Court : Mumbai Goa

..... the act of 1972. 5. it appears that during the course of the recording of the examination of
pw2- prabhudessai, an ..... in hunting the wild boar, with three cartridges was recovered from
the house of the third accused, during a search on 15/11/2010. in such circumstances, the
respondent and two others were put on trial for the offences punishable under sections
39(1)(d) and 39(3)(a) of the wild life (protection) act 1972 (act of 1972, for short) read with
section 27, sections 52 and 51 of ..... range forest officer, who was the investigating officer in
the case. it is also not disputed that under section 50(8) of the act of 1972, the confessional
statement can only be recorded by an officer not below the rank of assistant director of wild
life preservation or an officer not below the rank of assistant conservator of forest, authorised
by the state government ..... in this behalf. the question is, whether in the face of such
provision, the state can fall back upon section 25 of the evidence act, in order to contend that
in as much as