TITTY ALIAS GEORGE KURIAN versus THE DEPUTY RANGE FOREST OFFICER REVIEW PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 593 OF 2018 IN

Citation: [2020] 13 S.C.R. 1230 · Decided: 09-12-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHUSHAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1230
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 13 S.C.R.
TITTY ALIAS GEORGE KURIAN
v.
THE DEPUTY RANGE FOREST OFFICER
Review Petition (Criminal) No. 593 of 2018
In
(Criminal Appeal No. 758 of 2018)
DECEMBER 09, 2020
[ASHOK BHUSHAN AND INDU MALHOTRA, JJ]
Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 – ss.2, 9, 11, 12, 39A, 49A,
51; Part II of Schedule I – Turtle seized from respondent – Criminal
proceedings quashed by High Court – Held: Judgment dtd.16.05.18
recalled – s.9 prohibits hunting of any wild animal under Schedule
I, II, III and IV except as provided u/ss.11 and 12 – On facts, Turtle
seized is not included in Part II, Schedule I and it was already freed
on the second day of its seizure thus, the High Court committed no
error in quashing the criminal proceedings – Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 – s.482.
Allowing the review petition and dismissing the appeal, the
Court
HELD: Section 9 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972
prohibits hunting of any wild animal under Schedule I, II, III and
IV except as provided under Sections 11 and 12. In case a person
hunts any of the wild animals which are included in Schedule I to
IV, it becomes an offence inviting the penalty under Section 51 of
the Act, 1972. A perusal of the letter given by the Veterinary
Surgeon 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
[2020] 13 S.C.R. 1230
1230
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1231
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. No good ground found to interfere with
the order of the High Court. [Paras 12-14][1233-H; 1234-A-D]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Review Petition
(Criminal) No. 593 of 2018 in Criminal Appeal No. 758 of 2018.
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.05.2018 of the Supreme
Court of India in Criminal Appeal No. 758 of 2018.
Abhilash M.R., Mohammed Sadique T.A., Nishe Rajen Shonker,
Advs. for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.
1. We have heard Shri Abhilash M.R., learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner and Shri Nishe Rajen Shonker, learned counsel for the
respondent.
2. We find sufficient ground to review the judgment dated
16.05.2018. The order of this Court dated 16.05.2018 is recalled. The
review petition is allowed.
This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 16.11.2017
of the Kerala High Court by which the High Court has allowed Criminal
M.C. No.2720 of 2017 filed by the respondent by quashing proceedings
in C.C. No.706 of 2016. The Deputy Range Forest Officer aggrieved by
judgment of the High Court has come up in this appeal.
4. The facts of the case briefly are:
On 25.07.2016 from the respondent, 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. A charge-sheet
was submitted by the Forest Officer. After seizure of the Turtle, the
same was sent for identification to Veterinary Surgeon who by its letter
dated 26.07.2016 identified the Turtle on inspection as “Indian Flap Shell”,
the scientific name is “Lissemys Punctata”. The Court on 27.07.2016
directed the Turtle to be freed.
TITTY ALIAS GEORGE KURIAN v. THE DEPUTY RANGE
FOREST OFFICER
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1232
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 13 S.C.R.
5. The respondent-accused filed an application before the High
Court for quashing the criminal proceedings. It was submitted before
the High Court that Indian Flap Shell Turtle which was seized was not
found included in Schedule I of Part II of the Wild Life (Protection)
Act, 1972, hence, such possession of the Turtle of that species will not
invite the offences alleged against the accused. The High Court being
satisfied that Turtle seized was not that species of Turtle which is included
in Part II of Schedule I of the Act, 1972, allo
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.