Smt. Nilima Raghunath Malode vs The State Of Maharashtra, Through ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 2151 Bom

     Judgment                                              1                                  wp251.16.odt




                                                                                        
                      
                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                                   NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.




                                                               
                                   WRIT PETITION NO. 251  OF 2016




                                                              
     State of Maharashtra (Forest Department),
     through Assistant Conservator of Forests, 
     Dhakna, Gugamal Wildlife Division, 
     Melghat Tiger Project, Paratwada, 




                                                
     District : Amravati.  
                                ig                                             ....  PETITIONER.

                                            //  VERSUS //
                              
     Bhajan son of Hotel Durve (Pawar), aged 
     about 22 years, Occupation : Nil, Resident 
      

     of Biruhali Police Station : Rithi, Tahsil and
     District : Katni, Madhya Pradesh. 
   



                                                        .... RESPONDENT
                                                                         . 
      ___________________________________________________________________
     Shri K.N.Shukul, Advocate for Petitioner. 
     Ms Swapna S. Jadhav, Advocate for Respondent. 
     ___________________________________________________________________





                                  CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.

DATED : MAY 02, 2016.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.

2. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith.

Judgment 2 wp251.16.odt

3. The State of Maharashtra (Forest Department) has filed this

petition challenging the order passed by the Sessions Court suspending the

execution of the sentence inflicted on the respondent for the offences

punishable under Sections 40(1)(2), 39(3), 44(1)(2), 49(B), 52 r/w Section

51(1)(D) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.

4.

The learned Magistrate has convicted the appellant for the

above referred offences and sentenced him to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for the term as stated in the judgment.

5. The learned Sessions Judge has recorded that the respondent

belongs to Nomadic Tribe and migrates from one place to another for his

livelihood and the respondent is not having knowledge of Marathi language

and the learned Magistrate has not taken any efforts to make the respondent-

accused understand the alleged statement recorded under Section 27 of the

Indian Evidence Act. The learned Sessions Judge has further recorded that

nothing is recovered from the accused and the recovery is from a public

place. It is the submission of advocates of both the parties that there is no

recovery as recorded by the learned Sessions Judge and perhaps the

reference is to the alleged place of transaction where the skin of tiger is given

to the purchaser and the money is taken from the purchaser.

Judgment 3 wp251.16.odt

6. Shri K.N. Shukul, advocate submits that the confessional

statement of the respondent is recorded as per Section 50(8) of the Wild Life

(Protection) Act, 1972 and it is in Hindi. Ms. S.S. Jadhav, advocate has

argued that in addition to the above referred statement, statement under

Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act has been recorded by the Investigating

Officer and it is in Marathi.

7.

Be that as it may, I find that the learned Sessions Judge has not

adverted to the relevant material on record. Furthermore, the gravity of the

crime is also not properly appreciated by the learned Sessions Judge.

Therefore, the impugned order is unsustainable.

8. Hence, the following order :

The order passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No.39 of 2016 on application (Ex.5) on 15th March, 2016 is set aside.

The respondent is granted liberty to move the Sessions Court

for grant of early hearing of the appeal.

Rule is made absolute in the above terms. In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.

JUDGE

RRaut..