Wild Life Act: Supreme Court Upholds Quashing Of Criminal Proceedings Against Man For Possessing ‘Indian Flap Shell Turtle’


first_imgNews UpdatesWild Life Act: Supreme Court Upholds Quashing Of Criminal Proceedings Against Man For Possessing ‘Indian Flap Shell Turtle’ LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK10 Dec 2020 9:18 AMShare This – xThe Supreme Court upheld a Kerala High Court quashing criminal proceedings under Wildlife Act against a man for hunting and possessing Indian Flap Shell Turtle.The High Court had quashed the proceedings on the ground that the Turtle seized was not that species of Turtle which is included in Part II of Schedule I of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. The Supreme Court, allowing the appeal…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginThe Supreme Court upheld a Kerala High Court quashing criminal proceedings under Wildlife Act against a man for hunting and possessing Indian Flap Shell Turtle.The High Court had quashed the proceedings on the ground that the Turtle seized was not that species of Turtle which is included in Part II of Schedule I of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. The Supreme Court, allowing the appeal filed by the State had set aside the High Court judgment. Later, the accused filed review petition which was allowed and the earlier order was recalled.The bench comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan and Indu Malhotra noted that the Veterinary Surgeon who examined the Turtle seized from him had identified it as ‘Indian Flap Shell’ and the scientific name “Lissemys Punctata”. whereas Item No.8, Schedule I Part II is about ‘Indian Soft-shelled Turtle (Lissemys punctata punctata)’. The court observed that, section 9 of the Act prohibits hunting of any wild animal under Schedule I, II, III and IV except as provided under Sections 11 and 12, that Sections 11 and 12 are the provisions where hunting is permitted by the permission of Chief Wild Life Warden, that in case a person hunts any of the wild animals which are included in 7 Schedule I to IV, it becomes an offence inviting the penalty under Section 51 of the Act.”A perusal of the letter given by the Veterinary Surgeon as extracted above indicates that Veterinary Surgeon has identified the Turtle as ‘Indian Flap Shell (Lissemy’s Punctata)’ whereas the Turtle which is included in Part II of Schedule I of the Act, 1972 is “Indian Soft-shelled Turtle (Lissemys punctata punctata).” Lissemys punctata is a species of which Lissemys punctata is infraspecies. Although Lissemys punctata is included in Part II of Schedule I of the Act, however, the Turtle which has been seized is not that which is included in Part II of Schedule I. In the facts of the present case, on the face of it, the Turtle seized is not included in Schedule I Part II and the Turtle having already been freed on the second day of its seizure, the High Court did not commit any error in quashing the criminal proceedings registered for Wild Life offences.”, the bench observed while upholding the High Court order.CASE: TITTY ALIAS GEORGE KURIAN vs. THE DEPUTY RANGE FOREST OFFICER [REVIEW PETITION (CRL.) NO. 593 OF 2018]CORAM: Justices Ashok Bhushan and Indu Malhotra Appearance : Advocate M R Abhilash for the petitionerClick here to Read/Download JudgmentRead JudgmentSubscribe to LiveLaw, enjoy Ad free version and other unlimited features, just INR 599 Click here to Subscribe. All payment options available.loading….Next Storylast_img