The Supreme Court in, TITTY ALIAS GEORGE KURIAN v. THE DEPUTY RANGE FOREST OFFICER, stated that Indian Flap Shell Turtle was different from Indian Soft-shelled turtle and hence the criminal proceedings against the accused of seizing the Indian Flap Shell turtle should be quashed as the turtle did not find mention in the Schedule of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972
Facts
Titty alias George Kurian a Turtle was seized by Rani Forest Flying Squared Range Staff at Karumbanakulam. The offence under Section 2, 9, 39A, 49A, and 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 was registered. The turtle was identified as ‘Indian Flap Shell’.
Decision of HC
The HC allowed the criminal proceedings to be quashed as they were satisfied that Turtle seized was not that species of Turtle which is included in Part II of Schedule I of the Act, 1972. Unsatisfied by the decision, the appellant approached the SC.
Appellant’s contention
It was contended that whether Indian Soft-shelled Turtle and Indian Flap Shell Turtle are two different species or part of single species or a subspecies of the latter are matters of expert evidence and ought to have been decided only under trial and the HC committed error in allowing the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C
Respondent’s Contention
The respondents supported the decision of the HC of quashing the criminal proceedings on the grounds that the Turtle seized does not find mention in the Schedule of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and therefore there is no occasion for registering any offence.
SC’s Observation
The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the HC while stating that the Turtle which has been seized is not that which is included in Part II of Schedule I. It stated that the 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).” Therefore, the SC concluded that the High Court did not commit any error in quashing the criminal proceedings registered for Wild Life offences.
Case Details
REVIEW PETITION (CRL.) NO. 593 OF 2018 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.758 OF 2018
Coram- Honble Justice Ashok Bhushan and Honble Justice Indu Malhotra
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Share this Document :
Picture Source :
