Can accused avoid prosecution for possessing shawls made of toosh by contending that he is only caretaker of the house? High Court will examine: [Read the Order]

Delhi High Court has issued notice in a leave petition against acquittal for offence punishable under  the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.

A bench of Justice Bakhru has passed the order in the case titled as CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION vs MUSTAQ AHMED BUTT on 27.09.2019.

The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning the judgment dated 05.04.2019 passed by the Special Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi, whereby the judgment of the learned ACMM (Special Act), Tis Hazari Courts, which convicted the respondent, was set aside.

The respondent was charged for an offence under Sections 49 and 49B(I) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. The allegation against the respondent is that he was in possession of shawls made of toosh.

The said shawls were found in two suitcases in a house. It is the respondent’s defence that he was only looking after the said house in absence of its owner, who had gone abroad to visit his children.

According to the respondent, he was not aware of the existence of the said shawls. It is the prosecution’s case that the appellant was in full knowledge and possession of the shawls in question.

It is pointed out that the gas connection of the said premises was in the name of the respondent and the reasoning of the court that the same was not proved is clearly erroneous.

This is so, because the said fact had been admitted on behalf of the accused.

The learned counsel appearing for the State has also pointed out that a suggestion was put to one of the witnesses on behalf of the defence that the shawls were for family use and/or gifting purposes.

He submits that in this view, the respondent could not have set up a case that he was not aware of the existence of the said shawls.

In such circumstances, the High Court issued notice.

Read the Order here:

Picture Source :