Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
Justice Tirthankar Ghosh reversed the order passed by a trial court. In the previous order, the petitioner had been convicted and had been sentenced for committing offences punishable under Section 51(1-A) of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972.
In the present case, the petitioner claimed that he had been falsely accused of possessing various wildlife materials such as tiger skin tusks, baby rhino horns and nails of tigers. These materials had been seized during the raid conducted by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence. Hence the petitioner was accused and charged under Section 51(1-A) of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972. The Court tried him and found him guilty. Upon appealing to the Trial Court, the court upheld the conviction. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed for an instant revision to the HC. It was also noted that during the ongoing investigation, his statement had been recorded for future purpose under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962.
While evaluation, the HC realized that the basis for the charges brought against him was the statement that had been recorded. This approach had already been rejected in the case Noor Aga v State of Punjab 2008 16 SCC 417 and the court stated “The statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act which has been made the foundation for conviction by the Ld. Courts below, firstly is a very weak piece of evidence, as no Court can rely upon a statement of the accused until and unless the same is corroborated by material particulars. Moreover, the said statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act were made before the DRI Authorities which can be used in a prosecution under the Customs Act and using the same as a foundation for an offence under the 1972 Act is against the settled principles of law.”
In view of this matter, the Calcutta HC quashed the charges against him and allowed the revision petition.
Quasim Ali v. Sajal Baran Das, CRR No. 3523 of 2010
86540
103860
630
114
59824