Delhi District Court
Cbi(Wildlife) vs Ms Indian Art Gallery on 12 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. T. PRIYADARSHINI, CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURTS, NEW DELHI CBI(WILD LIFE) vs. M/S INDIAN ART GALLERY Case No. : CBI/292/2019 FIR/RC No : RCSTB/2009/E/0001 U/s : 51 read with Section 40/49/49B & 58 of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 Branch : CBI, EOU-V, New Delhi JUDGMENT
a) Unique Case ID No. : CNR No. DLCT12-000891- 2019 b) The date of commission : Between 2008 to 2009 c) Name of the Complainant : Sh. Ramesh K. Pandey, the then Deputy Director, WCCB (NR), New Delhi d) Name, parentage & address : M/s Indian Art Gallery through its Proprietor Syed Shahid Ahmad Kashani S/o Sh. Syed Gul Mohmmad Kashani, R/o H. No. 78, New Colony Nigeen, Mirza Bagh, Hazratbal, Srinagar, (J&K) e) Offences complained of : Section 51 read with Section CBI(Wild Life) Vs. M/s Indian Art Gallery Page no. 1 of 67 Case No. CBI/292/2019 RC No. RCSTB/2009/E/0001 Digitally signed by T T PRIYADARSHINI PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2026.03.16 14:12:36 +0530 40/49/49-B & 58 of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 f) The plea of the accused(s) : Pleaded not guilty g) Final Judgment : Conviction h) Date of institution of case : 07.10.2009 i) Date of Judgment : 12.03.2026. BRIEF FACTS AND REASONS FOR THE DECISION:
1. A complaint under Section 51 of Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 (hereinafter "the Act") was filed by the Wildlife Crime Control Bureau (hereinafter referred to as "WCCB"), through its Deputy Director Sh. Ramesh Kumar Pandey, against accused Syed Shahid Ahmed Kashani (hereinafter referred to as "accused"), for committing the offences under Sections 40/49(1)/49B(1) and 58 of the Act, punishable under Section 51 of the Act.
Allegations as per the complaint
2. In a nutshell, it is averred in the complaint that the accused, in his capacity as the proprietor of firm M/s Indian Art Gallery having its office at C-24, Hazarat Ali Nagar Colony, Ramnagar Mor, Karbala, Jaipur, was/is a manufacturer, wholesale dealer and exporter of handicrafts items including Shawls. Accused purchased 1,335 Shawls/stoles of various varieties vide Bill no. 763 dated 03.12.2008 and 352 Shawls/stoles of various varieties CBI(Wild Life) Vs. M/s Indian Art Gallery Page no. 2 of 67 Case No. CBI/292/2019 RC No. RCSTB/2009/E/0001 Digitally signed by T T PRIYADARSHINI PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2026.03.16 14:12:43 +0530 vide Bill no. 768 dated 04.12.2008 from M/s Gee Emm Shawls Industries, K28, Lajpat Nagar-II, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as " Gee Emm Shawls"). Thereafter, accused approached M/s Shubham Logistics Private Limited to arrange the shipment of his consignment containing 1290 Shawls to firm i.e. M/s Rose Perfumes, PO Box 697, Sultanate of Oman, Muscat. Accused converted the said consignments into five packages and handed over to Sh. Jitender, the employee of M/s Subham Logistic Private Limited on 04.12.2008, outside the godown of Gee Emm Shawls alongwith necessary documents. On the basis of Proforma Invoice and Packing List having no. IAG/39/2008 dated 04.12.2008 received from accused through an email dated 04.12.2008 from email id [email protected], and on the direction of accused, necessary export documents like Proforma Invoice and Packing List, Annexure-I, Export Value Declaration, Form SDF etc., were prepared and signed by said Mr. Jitender on the basis of authority letter dated 27.11.2008 by the accused and on 05.12.2008, the consignment in five packages were handed over to Sh. Kuldeep, a representative of Custom Handling Agent namely M/s Trade Wings Limited, New Delhi for its export process. During the process of export, the Customs Authorities, Cargo Shed, IGI Airport, New Delhi, ordered for NOC from Wildlife Authorities and package nos. 1 and 4 of the consignment were identified for examination. On 10.12.2008, the package nos. 1 and 4 were examined by Ms. Arti Singh who took out five suspected Shawls to be containing Shahtoosh (hair of Tibetan Antelope) from package no. 4 and these five Shawls were sealed, seized and sent for expert opinion, which was found positive. In this background, the present RC was registered against the accused on the basis CBI(Wild Life) Vs. M/s Indian Art Gallery Page no. 3 of 67 Case No. CBI/292/2019 RC No. RCSTB/2009/E/0001 Digitally signed by T T PRIYADARSHINI PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2026.03.16 14:12:50 +0530 of complaint filed by WCCB.
3. The present case was registered in EOU(V) Branch of CBI, New Delhi on 03.02.2009 against M/s Indian Art Gallery, Jaipur, Rajasthan and unknown others on the basis of information received through letter no. 3-63/WN/08/1411 dated 23.01.2009 issued by Sh. Ramesh K. Pandey, Deputy Director, WCCB on the allegations of attempt to export 1,290 stole/Shawls of various varieties including Shawls containing Shahtoosh i.e. hair of Tibetan Antelope (Pantholops hodgsonii), through a consignment vide shipping bill no. 3488988 dated 04.12.2008 from Air Cargo, IGI Airport, New Delhi which prima facie disclosed the commission of aforesaid offences on the part of M/s Indian Art Gallery and unknown others.
4. The investigation of the present case was marked to Inspector Sanjay Dubey, who collected all the necessary documents from the concerned authorities i.e. Customs Department, IGI Airport, New Delhi and WCCB, New Delhi. He also examined the relevant witnesses.
5. During investigation, it was revealed that accused had purchased 1,335 numbers of Shawls/stoles of various varieties vide Bill no. 763 dated 03.12.2008 and again 352 number of Shawls/stoles of various varieties vide Bill no. 768 dated 04.12.2008 from M/s Gee Emm Shawls. Further, after purchase of said stock of Shawls/stoles, on 03.12.2008 and 04.12.2008, accused took cardboard boxes from the firm and himself packed the Shawls/stoles in such boxes, in the godown premises of Gee Emm T PRIYADARSHINI CBI(Wild Life) Vs. M/s Indian Art Gallery Page no. 4 of 67 Digitally signed by Case No. CBI/292/2019 T PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2026.03.16 14:12:55 +0530 RC No. RCSTB/2009/E/0001 Shawls without availing the services of any of the employees of the firm even after their repeated offers. After packing, the said boxes were taped, wrapped, stitched and ribboned/belted, etc. by one of the employees of the firm on the request of accused, in his presence.
6. During investigation, it was revealed that accused being the proprietor of Indian Art Gallery approached M/s Shubham Logistics Private Limited, New Delhi and asked them to arrange the shipment of their consignment containing 1290 Shawls of various varieties to a firm i.e. M/s Rose Perfumes, PO Box no. 697, Sultanate of Oman, Muscat. Accordingly, M/s Shubham Logistics Private Limited, New Delhi on the basis of 'Proforma Invoice and Packing List' having no. IAG/39/2008 dated 04.12.2008 received from M/s Indian Art Gallery through an email dated 04.12.2008 from email ID [email protected] and on the directions of accused, M/s Shubham Logistics Private Limited, New Delhi prepared the necessary export documents like Proforma Invoice and Packing List, Export Value Declaration, Form SDF etc. for the purpose. These documents were duly signed by Sh. Jitender, an employee of M/s Shubham Logistics Private Limited, New Delhi, on the basis of authority dated 27.11.2008 by the accused in favour of M/s Shubham Logistics Private Limited, New Delhi for the purpose.
7. During investigation, it was revealed that five packages containing Shawls/stoles, packed by accused alone were collected by him on T 04.12.2008 itself. These packages were delivered to him by Sh. Pankaj PRIYADARSHINI Digitally signed by T PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2026.03.16 14:13:02 +0530 CBI(Wild Life) Vs. M/s Indian Art Gallery Page no. 5 of 67 Case No. CBI/292/2019 RC No. RCSTB/2009/E/0001 Sharma and Sh. Mukesh Kumar Singh, both employees of M/s Gee Emm Shawls on his request, outside their godown. Sh. Jitender, an employee of M/s Shubham Logistics Private Limited, New Delhi also collected said five packages outside the godown of M/s Gee Emm Shawls from the accused on 04.12.2008 itself and thereafter, the aforesaid packages were loaded by accused in a vehicle brought by Sh. Jitender and were shifted to the godown of M/s Shubham Logistics Private Limited, New Delhi for further process on 05.12.2008. Thereafter, on 05.12.2008, the aforesaid consignment in five packages along with necessary documents were handed over by Sh. Jitender to Sh. Kuldeep, an employee of Customs Handling Agent (CHA) namely M/s Trade Wings Limited, New Delhi for its export process.
8. During investigation, it was revealed that on 05.12.2008, the consignment was submitted by Sh. Kuldeep to Customs Authorities at Cargo Shed, IGI Airport, New Delhi along with the necessary export documents. The further process of export of the consignment including its examination, vide shipping bill no. 3488988 dated 04.12.2008 was represented by another employee of Customs Handling Agent (CHA) namely Sh. Randeep.
9. During investigation, it was revealed that on 05.12.2008, during the process of export, the Customs Authority, Cargo Shed, IGI Airport, New Delhi ordered for 'No Objection Certificate' from the Wildlife Authorities and package nos. 1 and 4 of the consignment were identified for examination. Further, on 10.12.2008, the said two packages of the consignment were examined by Ms. Aarti Singh, Inspector, WCCB, New CBI(Wild Life) Vs. M/s Indian Art Gallery Page no. 6 of 67 Digitally signed by T PRIYADARSHINI Case No. CBI/292/2019 T PRIYADARSHINI Date:
2026.03.16 14:13:07 +0530 RC No. RCSTB/2009/E/0001 Delhi in the presence of Customs Officers and Sh. Randeep and took out five Shawls suspected to contain Shahtoosh from package no.4. The above said five Shawls were sealed separately in a packet in presence of all concerned and the said packet was taken into possession by Ms. Aarti for their examination and expert opinion.
10. During investigation, it was revealed that the above said sealed packet containing five Shawls were forwarded to Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun (hereinafter referred to as "WII") vide letter no. 3-63/WN/08/1069 dated 12.12.2008 for examination and expert opinion thereupon, who confirmed that the referred five Shawls contained 'Shahtoosh' i.e. hair of Tibetan Antelope (Panthelops Hodgsonii), an animal listed in Schedule-I of the Act. On 15.01.2009, Ms. Aarti Singh, Inspector, WCCB also identified 36 more suspected Shawls in package no. 4 of the consignment, identical to earlier identified five Shawls confirmed to have 'Shahtoosh'. Consequent upon the expert opinion, the entire consignment seized by the Customs Department under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1960 in presence of all concerned including independent witnesses.
11. During investigation, it was revealed that on 19.02.2009, the above said 36 Shawls, already identified to be identical to the five Shawls containing 'Shahtoosh' by Ms. Aarti Singh were taken out by the CBI from package no. 4 and sealed separately in a packet, which was forwarded to WII, Dehradun for examination vide CBI letter no. 1493/3/1/2009 EOU-V T PRIYADARSHINI New Delhi dated 02.03.2009, who confirmed that all the above said 36 Digitally signed by T PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2026.03.16 14:13:11 +0530 CBI(Wild Life) Vs. M/s Indian Art Gallery Page no. 7 of 67 Case No. CBI/292/2019 RC No. RCSTB/2009/E/0001 Shawls contain Shahtoosh.
12. During investigation, it was revealed that there is sufficient material to prove the involvement of firm namely Indian Art Gallery through its proprietor accused in making a conscious and dishonest attempt to export the Shawls containing 'Shahtoosh' to M/s Rose Perfumes, Muscat through a consignment of Shawls vide Shipping Bill no. 3488988 dated 04.12.2008. In this background, the present case was registered by the CBI and complaint was filed on the basis of information received from the official of WCCB.
Course of Proceedings
13. Cognizance of the offences was taken on 07.10.2009 by the Ld. Predecessor.
14. In Pre-Charge Evidence, 19 witnesses were examined. They are - CW1 Ms. Arti Singh, CW2 Sh. Biren Sarkar, CW3 Sanjeev Dhaulta, CW4 Ram Niwas Bankar, CW5 Sh. Radhey Shyam, CW6 Ramesh Kumar Pandey, CW7 Sh. V.S. Thakur, CW8 Ms. Veena Hindwan, CW9 Sh. Kuldeep, CW10 Sh. Jitender Kumar, CW11 Sh. Randeep Singh, CW12 Sh. Devender Kumar, CW13 Sh. Prashant Yadav, CW14 Sh. Rajiv Bhatia, CW15 Sh. Pankaj Sharma, CW16 Sh. Nimendra Mohan Prasad Sinha, CW17 Sh. J.F. Bennet Faria, CW18 Dr.S.P. Goyal and CW19 Sh. Sanjay Dubey. During the course of the proceedings, accused reserved his right to cross examine the witness in post charge T PRIYADARSHINI Digitally signed by T PRIYADARSHINI CBI(Wild Life) Vs. M/s Indian Art Gallery Page no. 8 of 67 Date: 2026.03.16 14:13:16 +0530 Case No. CBI/292/2019 RC No. RCSTB/2009/E/0001 evidence. Further, vide order dated 16.04.2015, Pre-Charge Evidence was closed.
15. Further, in the Post-Charge Evidence, the witnesses examined in the Pre-Charge Evidence were cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused and 12 additional witnesses were examined by the CBI. They are - CW20 Sh. Chandra Bhushan Dubey, CW21 Sh. Nilamdhab Mishra, CW22 Sh. Bunty Kumar, CW23 Sh. Rajender Singh Shekhawat, CW24 Sh. Narender Kumar Gaur, CW25 Sh. B.S. Khati, CW26 Sh. Manzoor Hussain Bhat, CW27 Sh. Balbeer Singh Khati, CW28 Sh. Ram Chander Morwal, CW29 Sh. Anil Kumar, CW30 Sh. Mukesh Kumar, CW31 Ms. Suman Dhaulta and CW32 Sh. Sheikh Firoz Ahmed.
16. Charges were framed against the accused vide order dated 04.06.2015 under Sections 40/49/49B(1) and 58 of the Act punishable under Section 51 of the Act, to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Prosecution Evidence
17. WCCB has examined 32 witnesses in all including 19 witnesses examined in pre-charge evidence.
18. CW1 Ms. Aarti Singh, WLI, WCCB, Eastern Region, Kolkata deposed that on 10.12.2008, she was on duty and present at their office at CBI(Wild Life) Vs. M/s Indian Art Gallery Page no. 9 of 67 T PRIYADARSHINI Case No. CBI/292/2019 RC No. RCSTB/2009/E/0001 Digitally signed by T PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2026.03.16 14:13:22 +0530 IGI Airport, New Delhi in Air Cargo Section. She deposed that they have an office of Wildlife at IGI Airport for clearances of export and import of cargo to find out whether it contains banned articles or not. She deposed that whenever the custom officials require No Objection Certificate from Wildlife as to contents of any cargo, they mark them those articles to be checked by them, according to the shipping bills. She further deposed that on 10.12.2008, two packages bearing serial nos. 1 and 4 were marked to them by the custom officials, she checked both the packages in the presence of Veena Hindwan, Custom Inspector and Mr. Randeep Singh, Custom House Agent. In package no.4, out of many Shawls, she suspected five Shawls to be prepared from Shahtoosh i.e. wool derived from hair of Tibetan Antelope. Those five Shawls were sealed separately by the custom officers with their seal bearing her signature and name thereupon. Thereafter, sealed package was handed over to CW1 which she took to their office and from her office, the packet was sent to WII through Sh. B.S. Khati alongwith a covering letter dated 12.12.2008 signed by Mr. Ramesh K. Pandey, for its examination by WII. CW1 also identified the signature of Mr. Ramesh K. Pandey at point A on the letter dated 12.12.2008 which is Ex. CW1/1 as she had seen him while writing and signing the documents during her official duty. On 02.01.2009, they received a report from WII, which stated that all five Shawls contained hairs of Shahtoosh i.e. Tibetan Antelope. Thereafter, they handed over the report of WII and the five Shawls to the Customs Department. Thereafter, she alongwith Mr. B.S. Khati and other officials had checked the entire consignment and found 36 more Shawls of the same package no. 4, which were suspected to be containing hair of Tibetan T CBI(Wild Life) Vs. M/s Indian Art Gallery Page no. 10 of 67 PRIYADARSHINI Case No. CBI/292/2019 Digitally signed by RC No. RCSTB/2009/E/0001 T PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2026.03.16 14:13:27 +0530 Antelope. After keeping the 36 Shawls in the same packet, the entire package no. 4 was seized. A seizure memo was also prepared which is Ex. CW1/2. On 23.01.2009, the shipping bills and all other documents pertaining to this cargo were handed over by the Customs Department to the WII and on the same day, it was handed over by them to CBI. She deposed that CBI called her on 19.02.2009 at IGI Airport, where the packets were kept. On the direction of CBI, she examined those 36 Shawls once again in the presence of independent witness Mr. J.F. Bennet Faria, who was manager from Bank of Baroda, Sadar Bazar, Delhi. The 36 Shawls were sealed separately in a packet with the seal of CBI and seizure memo was prepared on 19.02.2009 which is Ex. CW1/3. Witness correctly identified the five Shawls and 36 Shawls on being produced before the Court. Five Shawls were Ex. P1 to P5 and 36 Shawls were Ex. P6 to P41. The said witness was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused.
19. CW2 Mr. Biren Sarkar deposed that on 10.12.2008, he was posted as a Superintendent at IGI Airport in the Export Shed and he had to issue "Let Export Order" after examining the cargo which were meant for export. He deposed that initially the export consignment are checked by Inspector Customs and in case he is not satisfied then he examines the export cargo himself. He deposed that the cargo is checked randomly by the Inspectors. He deposed that on 10.12.2008, the Customs Inspector Ms. Veena Hindwan brought one package to him and informed him that this package is to be examined as it contained Pashmina Shawls. They prepared a note and put up before Assistant Commissioner, the same was allowed by CBI(Wild Life) Vs. M/s Indian Art Gallery Page no. 11 of 67 Case No. CBI/292/2019 T PRIYADARSHINI RC No. RCSTB/2009/E/0001 Digitally signed by T PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2026.03.16 14:13:32 +0530 the concerned Assistant Commissioner and its export was stopped. He deposed that he did not check the packet, it was checked by Inspector, Customs. The said witness was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused.
20. CW3 Sh. Sanjeev Dhaulta deposed that he deals in logistic part of export being made by their client exporters like picking up and dropping up of consignment from different places to the cargo shed of IGI Airport, New Delhi. He deposed that he knew accused who was the proprietor of M/s Indian Art Gallery, Jaipur as CW3 used to look after the export business of accused for clearance including export to M/s Rose Perfumes Muscat. He also correctly identified the accused in the Court. He deposed that he got the directions from the accused for doing the logistic work of export consignment on his email id i.e. [email protected] from email id of accused i.e. [email protected] for processing the export of five packages/cartons. In the aforesaid email, he also received invoice and packing list for the said consignments. He deputed his employee Sh. Jitender to visit Lajpat Nagar to collect the consignments from accused. Sh. Jitender had taken TATA Qualis bearing registration number DL7CE-1319 for the purpose of collection of consignments. He deposed that accused took his employee to the godown premises of Gee Emm Shawls and from there the consignment was taken to Shubham Logistic's godown located at 1E/19B, Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi. He deposed that on the next day, Jitender Kumar took the consignment to Airport and handed over the same to Sh. Kuldeep Singh, employee of M/s Trade Wings Limited. He deposed CBI(Wild Life) Vs. M/s Indian Art Gallery Page no. 12 of 67 T PRIYADARSHINI Case No. CBI/292/2019 Digitally signed by RC No. RCSTB/2009/E/0001 T PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2026.03.16 14:13:36 +0530 that as per his directions, Sh. Jitender had handed over the consignment papers including invoice packet list and other documents to Sh. Kuldeep Singh. He deposed that in response to a notice under Section 160 and 91 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as " CrPC") from CBI, he had written a letter dated 16.02.2009 which is Ex. CW3/A. The authority letter dated 27.11.2008 given in his favour is Ex.CW3/B. Another letter dated 27.11.2008 which is Ex. CW3/C also bears his signature. Proforma invoices and packing list of Indian Arts Gallery i.e. Ex. CW3/D bears the stamp of his company and his signature at point A. The email from Indian Art Gallery to [email protected] is Ex. CW3/E. Another email from accused to [email protected] bearing his signature and stamp of his company at point A. Despite grant of opportunity, he was not cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused.
21. CW4 Sh. Ram Niwas Banker deposed that on 05.12.2008, he was posted in Allied Warehouse Export Shed Air Cargo Unit, Delhi and used to examine and inspect the export goods. Mr. Randeep Singh produced the document i.e. a check list along with invoice and packing list for entry in the system, which is Ex. CW4/A. He deposed that he made endorsement on the first page of check list "NOC W/L required" on seeing Pashmina Shawls mentioned in the check list and invoice packing and thereafter handed over to Mr. Randeep Singh. The said witness was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused.
T PRIYADARSHINI
22. CW5 Sh. Radhey Shyam deposed that during the year 2008, he Digitally signed by T PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2026.03.16 14:13:41 +0530 CBI(Wild Life) Vs. M/s Indian Art Gallery Page no. 13 of 67 Case No. CBI/292/2019 RC No. RCSTB/2009/E/0001 was posted as Inspector at Export Shed and was entrusted the duty of goods arrival. He deposed that he received shipping bill of CHA Trade Wings Limited, he counted the packets and entered the same in system. After the entry, the matter was automatically marked by the system to Sh. Ram Nivas Bankar, Inspector. He admitted that he had seen Ex. CW4/A and admitted that it bears his signature at point A. He deposed that as per the procedure, in case of export of Pashmina Shawls, NOC of wildlife is required. Despite grant of opportunity, he was not cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused.
23. CW6 Sh. Ramesh Kumar deposed that during December, 2008, he was posted as Deputy Director, WCCB at Bikaner House, New Delhi. He deposed that as per existing procedure, they used to give comments to customs regarding wildlife parts and products involved in the consignments referred by customs. He deposed that a consignment of Indian Art Gallery was referred by customs for inspection to WCCB, which was checked by Ms. Aarti Singh (CW1) and five Shawls suspected to contain Shahtoosh hairs were identified. He deposed that these five Shawls were sealed by the custom in presence of Ms. Aarti Singh and representative of CHA as per practice and sent to WII by him vide separate letter which is Ex. CW1/1. Further, he received a letter dated 15.12.2008 from WII acknowledging that WII received the sample which is Ex. CW6/1. Later, CW6 received a letter dated 02.01.2009 from WII in which WII opined that the sample of five Shawls sent by them was containing Tibetan Antelope (Pantholops Hodgsonii), which is Ex. CW6/2. Copy of the opinion and sample were handed over to the Customs Department. He deposed that complete T PRIYADARSHINI Digitally signed by CBI(Wild Life) Vs. M/s Indian Art Gallery Page no. 14 of 67 T PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2026.03.16 Case No. CBI/292/2019 14:13:45 +0530 RC No. RCSTB/2009/E/0001 consignment was checked by WLI and 36 more Shawls were identified and seized on 16.01.2009. Accordingly, they received a letter from custom which is Ex. CW6/3. On 23.01.2009, he intimated this matter to CBI vide separate letter. He deposed that his letter had been reproduced in the FIR which is Ex. CW6/4. CW6 further deposed that he issued a letter dated 23.01.2009 bearing no. 3-63/WN/08/1411 to the Superintendent of Police, EOU-V, which is Ex. CW6/5(colly). He also addressed a letter dated 12.01.2009 to Sh. H.S. Sharma, the Additional Commissioner of Custom (Exports) which is Ex. CW6/6 informing Customs Department regarding the confirmation report dated 02.01.2009 of WII and requested to take action as per law. He deposed that he forwarded five Shawls and analysis report of WII along with his letter. Further, on the basis of his letter Ex. CW6/5, CBI registered a case and requested him to submit the relevant documents through letter dated 04.02.2009 of Sh. Sanjay Dubey, Inspector CBI. On this, he wrote a letter dated 26.02.2009 forwarding the requisite documents /material to CBI which is Ex. CW6/7. The said witness was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused.
24. CW7 Sh. V.S. Thakur deposed that he was associated with the inspection of consignment by Ms. Aarti Singh. He also identified the Panchnama which is Ex. CW7/A. He deposed that as per the order of Assistant Commissioner of Customs, 100% goods were to be examined and accordingly, all packets mention in serial nos. 1 to 5 were examined by him in the presence of Ms. Aarti Singh. He deposed that in package no.4, the 36 other Shawls were found to contain hair of Shahtoosh and accordingly, the T PRIYADARSHINI CBI(Wild Life) Vs. M/s Indian Art Gallery Page no. 15 of 67 Digitally signed by T PRIYADARSHINI Case No. CBI/292/2019 Date: 2026.03.16 14:13:50 +0530 RC No. RCSTB/2009/E/0001 package no.4 was found objectionable and were sealed and retained. He deposed that on 16.01.2009, a seizure memo was prepared in the presence of Ms. Aarti Singh, two panch witnesses along with two officers namely himself and one Mr. N.K.Gaur from Customs Department. On 16.01.2009, packet no. 4 was examined. He identified the seizure memo Ex. CW7/B, which bears his signature. He had seen the deposit slip IGI Airport which was signed by Mr. N.K. Gaur, Superintendent (SEU) at point A whose signature identified by him at point A and same was Ex. CW7/C. Copy of Ex.CW7/C was also shown to CW7, which bears the signature of Sh. Gaur Superintendent (SEU) at point A which is Ex. CW7/D. On being shown Ex. CW1/B, he deposed that he was called by CBI and had recorded statements of all the persons present there. He also correctly identified the Shawls on being opened during his examination. The said witness was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused.
25. CW8 Ms. Veena Hindwan deposed that on 10.12.2008, she associated in the investigation with Ms. Aarti Singh in respect of Indian Art Gallery. She deposed that in the presence of Customs House Agent Randeep, Aarti Singh and herself, the packet no. 1 and 4 were opened and Ms. Aarti Singh found five Shawls in packet no.4 suspected to contain fibres of Shahtoosh (Tibetan Antelope wool), which were taken out in her presence for the purpose of examination by expert. She correctly identified Shawls which are Ex. P1 to Ex. P5. The said witness was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused.
T
PRIYADARSHINI
CBI(Wild Life) Vs. M/s Indian Art Gallery Page no. 16 of 67 Digitally signed by
T PRIYADARSHINI
Case No. CBI/292/2019 Date: 2026.03.16
14:13:55 +0530
RC No. RCSTB/2009/E/0001
26. CW9 Sh. Kuldeep deposed that he had joined M/s Trade Wings Limited in the year 2008 as Helper and his duty was to assist Sh. Randeep for export of consignment. He was also issued the identity card which is Mark A, copy of the same was also deposited with the Customs Department and CBI for record purpose. He deposed that he received five packages having bill no. 3488988 which is Ex. CW9/A and an envelope containing relevant documents from Sh. Jitender Kumar of M/s Shubham Logistics in the outer parking area of export Shed, IGI Airport, Delhi which were brought there in three wheeler on 05.12.2008. Thereafter, he had taken the consignment to weighment counter manned by official of IGI Airport where the same were weighed as 174 kgs and due endorsement was made on TC which is Ex. CW4/A(colly). He deposed that he had handed over the relevant documents of the consignment to Sh. Randeep Singh for further action. He confirmed that he never opened any consignment and any package at any point of of time. Despite grant of opportunity, he was not cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused.
27. CW10 Sh. Jitender Kumar deposed that he was working with Shubham Logistics since last seven years and his duties normally included preparation of documents and bill and field work. He deposed that he knew accused and on 04.12.2008, an email was received from accused which is already Ex. CW3/F for the export of shipment and thereafter, the documents were prepared. He deposed that his statement was recorded by the CBI which is Ex. CW10/A. The said witness was re-examined by Ld. PP for CBI. Witness deposed that after receiving the email, he informed his senior who T PRIYADARSHINI CBI(Wild Life) Vs. M/s Indian Art Gallery Page no. 17 of 67 Case No. CBI/292/2019 Digitally signed by T PRIYADARSHINI RC No. RCSTB/2009/E/0001 Date: 2026.03.16 14:14:01 +0530 directed him to prepare the proforma and packing list and further told him to go to Lajpat Nagar where accused had been waiting to collect the packed items. He correctly identified the accused present in the court. He deposed that accused took him to one godown situated at Lajpat Nagar of Gee Emm Shawls situated at basement no.3, Firoz Gandhi Road, Delhi. Thereafter, accused loaded five packets of consignment in his vehicle and asked him to take the consignment for export. He deposed that since shipping bill had not arrived, he had taken the consignment to his godown at Jhandewalan. On 05.02.2008, he took all the five packages from his godown in hired vehicle to Cargo Shed, IGI Airport, Delhi and handed over the said consignment along with the documents to Sh. Kuldeep, Customs House Agent for further action. He had seen the documents which are proforma packing list i.e. Ex. 12/A and its annexures i.e. declaration for export of artistic handloom, export value declaration already Ex. CW9/A. He had also seen SDF form which is Ex. CW10/X. The said witness was not cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused.
28. CW11 Randeep Singh deposed that he worked with Trade Wings Limited from 2005 to 2010. He was not having the license as worker but he was issued G-identity card bearing no. 25/02 issued by Custom Authority, which was valid up to 2016. The G-ID Card is Ex.CW11/1. He had also seen the photocopy of CHA license no. 11/52 (D-38/7) issued by Custom Authority to the Trade Wings Limited which is Mark B. He deposed that his duty was to clearance the goods by the customs which was booked by the company. On 05.12.2008, five packages and documents i.e. shipping T PRIYADARSHINI CBI(Wild Life) Vs. M/s Indian Art Gallery Page no. 18 of 67 Digitally signed Case No. CBI/292/2019 by T PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2026.03.16 RC No. RCSTB/2009/E/0001 14:14:05 +0530 bill no. 34883498 dated 04.12.2008 of Indian Art Gallery came to him through Mr. Kuldeep Singh, the bill was system generated by Mr. Devender Kumar, employee of Trade Wings Limited. On 05.12.2008, he filled up Annexure-C for exports of goods by air and submitted the same along with the check list, declaration form for export of goods to the warehouse Inspector. Since the consignment contained Pashmina Shawl, it was ordered to get NOC from Wildlife Department, which was to be checked. On 05.12.2008, he visited the WCCB and produced the relevant documents. On 10.12.2008, the package nos. 1 and 4 of the consignment were checked by Ms. Aarti Singh in the presence of Customs Inspector and himself. He deposed that during inspection, Ms. Aarti Singh found five suspected Shahtoosh Shawls in their presence. The said five Shawls were sealed separately and kept for examination by expert. On 15.01.2009, the entire five packages were again checked by Ms. Aarti Singh in the presence of custom official, himself and two independent witnesses. During examination, 36 more Shawls similar to those five Shawls were identified in their presence. On 16.01.2009, the entire five packages were re-examined by Ms. Aarti Singh in the presence of accused, Customs Inspector, himself and two independent witnesses, the said packages were sealed and seized by the Customs Department and thereafter handed over to Delhi Airport Authority. On 19.02.2009, CBI team in presence of Ms. Aarti Singh, officials of custom department and witnesses, took out 36 Shawls from package no.4, which were identified by Ms. Aarti Singh to be Shahtoosh Shawl and the same were separately sealed by CBI seal. The package no. 4 was also sealed with the seal of CBI and package no. 4 handed over to DIAL for safe custody. He T Digitally signed by T PRIYADARSHINI PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2026.03.16 14:14:20 +0530 CBI(Wild Life) Vs. M/s Indian Art Gallery Page no. 19 of 67 Case No. CBI/292/2019 RC No. RCSTB/2009/E/0001 deposed that he had filled the said Annexure C in his own hand writing. He also admitted the declaration form for export of goods dated 04.12.2008 which is already Ex. CW4/A. He also admitted seizure memo dated 16.01.2009 which is already Ex. CW1/2. He also admitted proceedings held on 19.02.2009 at Cargo Shed, IGI Airport which is already Ex. CW1/3. He was not cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused despite grant of opportunity.
29. CW12 Sh. Devender Kumar deposed that he had worked with M/s Trade Wings Limited from November 2006 to August 2009 and his duties were included filing of documents through computer in EDI system which is automatically forwarded to Customs Department. The Customs Department checks the data on EDI system and allots a particular shipping bill number for that particular export. Relating to Bill no. 3488988 dated 04.12.2008, he received proforma invoice and packing list of M/s Indian Art Gallery through an email from M/s Shubham Logistics Private Limited. Sh. Jitender Kumar of M/s Shubham Logistics Private Limited requested him over telephone that the invoices which he had sent, took it on processing through EDI system for export of consignment. After being checked and verified by Sh. Randeep Singh, he submitted the same through EDI system vide job no. 938 dated 04.12.2008. He proved the proforma invoice and packing list dated 04.12.2008, which is Ex. CW12/A. He also proved the check list as per invoice, which was signed by Mr. Randeep Singh, which is Ex. CW12/B. The said witness was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused. Digitally signed by T T PRIYADARSHINI PRIYADARSHINI Date:
2026.03.16 14:14:25 +0530 CBI(Wild Life) Vs. M/s Indian Art Gallery Page no. 20 of 67 Case No. CBI/292/2019 RC No. RCSTB/2009/E/0001
30. CW13 Mr. Prashant Yadav deposed that on 15.01.2009, on the request of Mr. Thakur, Inspector, Customs, he was associated as an independent witness during the examination of five packages of M/s Indian Art Gallery. On examination of the five packages, from package no.4, approximately 36 Shawls were taken out, the said Shawls were made of Shahtoosh. The said package was examined in his presence and thereafter, it was sealed alongwith those Shawls, which was handed over to custody of Airport Authority. He had seen Panchnama dated 15.01.2002 already Ex.
CW7/A. He has also identified the case property on being produced which is already Ex. P6 to Ex.P-41. The said witness was not cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused, despite grant of opportunity.
31. CW14 Mr. Rajiv Bhatia deposed that he was posted as Deputy Manager at New Delhi Custom House IGI Airport of PNB Bank from April 2008 to July 2011. He deposed that Senior Manager Sh. V.K. Parashar sent the documents relating to M/s Indian Art Gallery to the CBI through Sh. S.K. Sood, staff of the bank. These documents were sent to the CBI office in a reply to a letter received from CBI. The said documents were account opening form, statement of accounts and certain documents of M/s Indian Art Gallery which were submitted at the time of opening of account. He identified the letter dated 23.07.2009 on the letter head of their bank written by the then Sr. Manager V.K. Parashar addressed to Sh. Sanjay Dubey, Inspector, CBI. He also identified the signature of Sr. Manager, Sh. V.K. Parashar as he had worked with him. CW14 deposed that by this letter, Sr. Manager sent the account opening forms/certificate and statement of CBI(Wild Life) Vs. M/s Indian Art Gallery Page no. 21 of 67 Case No. CBI/292/2019 RC No. RCSTB/2009/E/0001 T PRIYADARSHINI Digitally signed by T PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2026.03.16 14:14:31 +0530 accounts of current account no. 404700CA00024809 of M/s Indian Art Gallery, which is Ex. CW14/A. He identified the certified copy of account opening form of M/s Indian Art Gallery, which is Ex. CW14/B(colly). He deposed that the proprietor of the said firm was accused and the address of the firm was mentioned as C-24, Hazrat Ali Nagar Colony, Ramgarh Mor, Karbala, Ajmer Road, Jaipur. He also identified the seal of their said branch at point B on Ex. CW14/B. He identified the photocopy of PAN card of accused and seal of the branch thereupon which is Ex. CW14/C. He identified the certified photocopy of certificate of import export code of M/s Indian Art Gallery and seal of their branch thereupon which is Ex. CW14/D. He identified the certified photocopy of passport in the name of accused and seal of their branch which is Ex. CW14/E. He identified the photocopy of certified Certificate of Registration in respect of M/s Indian Art Gallery which is Ex. CW14/F. He identified the certified photocopy of introductory letter in respect of accused. He also identified the seal of their branch which is Ex. CW14/G. He identified the certified photocopy of letter of thanks issued by their branch to M/s Indian Art Gallery for opening of accounts with them and seal of the branch which is Ex. CW14/H. He identified the certified copy of statement of account bearing no. 404700CA00024809 of M/s Indian Art Gallery for the period 23.03.2007 to 23.07.2009, which is Ex. CW14/J. He was not cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused.
32. CW15 Sh. Pankaj Sharma deposed that he was working as Sales Executive in Gee Emm Shawls for the last 7-8 years. He deposed that he knew accused as he was regular customer of the firm. Accused was correctly T PRIYADARSHINI CBI(Wild Life) Vs. M/s Indian Art Gallery Page no. 22 of 67 Case No. CBI/292/2019 Digitally signed by RC No. RCSTB/2009/E/0001 T PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2026.03.16 14:14:35 +0530 identified by the witness. On 03.12.2008 and 04.12.2008, accused visited their firm for purchasing of Shawls and stoles etc. and purchased various Shawls/stoles from their said firm. Accused selected some Shawls from their showroom and remaining from godown. On 04.12.2008, accused packed the said Shawls and stoles which he had purchased on 03.12.2008 and 04.12.2008 at their godown himself. He deposed that he could not tell if the accused had packed the same Shawls which he had purchased from the showroom and godown on 03.12.2008 and 04.12.2008 or he had mixed some other Shawls/stoles at the time of packing because he himself had packed them. He offered his assistance in packing of the purchased Shawls but accused denied. On 04.12.2008, after packing the Shawls in five packets, accused asked him to wrap the said packets and stick the adhesive logo/stickers of M/s Indian Art Gallery thereon. Thereafter, on the instruction of accused, he alongwith Mr. Mukesh delivered the said packets outside the godown premises in his vehicle with the help of labourers. On 05.12.2008, accused again visited their showroom and godown and purchased some Shawls and stoles which were again packed by himself as he usually did in three packets. His statement was recorded by the CBI. He was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel reserved.
33. CW16 Nimendra Mohan Prasad Sinha deposed that during the year 2009, he was posted as Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBI. He deposed that on the basis of written complaint dated 23.01.2009 of Sh. Ramesh K. Pandey, CBI registered a case RC-1(E) 2009 on 03.02.2009 against M/s Indian Art Gallery. The investigation of the case was endorsed T CBI(Wild Life) Vs. M/s Indian Art Gallery Page no. 23 of 67 PRIYADARSHINI Case No. CBI/292/2019 RC No. RCSTB/2009/E/0001 Digitally signed by T PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2026.03.16 14:14:39 +0530 to Inspector Sh. Sanjay Dubey. He deposed that on the basis of oral and documentary evidence collected by Inspector Sanjay Dubey, he had filed the present complaint which is Ex. CW16/A against the firm M/s Indian Art Gallery. The complaint was forwarded by Sh. S.K. Peshin, the then SP, CBI. He had identified his signature at point E on the complaint. He was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused.
34. CW17 Sh. J.F. Bennet Faria deposed that on 19.02.2009, on the direction of his Chief Manager, Mr. S.C. Gupta, he reported to Sh. Sanjay Dubey, Inspector at 1.00 p.m. for witnessing proceedings at International Airport. He had seen a letter no. RO-DMR-RVD 1047 dated 18.02.2009 written by Deputy General Manager Sh. S.C. Ahuja to the Chief Manager Sadar Bazar Branch, Delhi vide which Chief Manager had requested to depute himself to report CBI office on 19.02.2009. The said letter is Ex. CW17/A. He had seen the sign of Chief Manager on the said letter. He had seen another letter no. BR SADARB:STF:2009/027 dated 19.02.2009 written by Sh. S. C. Gupta, Chief Manager to Inspector Sanjay Dubey, which is Ex. CW17/B vide which Mr. S.C.Gupta deputed CW17 for secret official duty on 19.02.2009. At 2.00 p.m, he alongwith Inspector Sanjay Dubey left CBI office for IGI Cargo, on the way WLI Ms. Aarti Singh also joined them at Bikaner House. They reached at IGI Cargo at about 2.45 p.m. The personal search of the CBI team member and of the vehicle were made before entering the Cargo Shed but nothing except stationary item was found. Accused and some other staff were also present there. He deposed that Inspector Sanjay Dubey requested the security officer to hand over the T PRIYADARSHINI CBI(Wild Life) Vs. M/s Indian Art Gallery Page no. 24 of 67 Digitally signed by T PRIYADARSHINI Case No. CBI/292/2019 Date: 2026.03.16 14:14:44 +0530 RC No. RCSTB/2009/E/0001 consignment of M/s Indian Art Gallery vide shipping bill no. 3488988 dated 04.12.2008. Accordingly, security officer handed over the said consignment of five packages to Inspector Sanjay Dubey, which were properly sealed. Inspector Sanjay Dubey opened packet no.4, which found contain 36 shawl in the presence of all the members. Thereafter, 36 Shawls were wrapped in a polythene and thereafter in a marking cloth and stitched with the seal of CBI i.e. C.B.I.S.D.N.D.1. All the packages were handed over again to the Security In-charge and the pullanda containing 36 Shawls were taken by Inspector Sanjay Dubey. A recovery memo was also prepared at the spot and signed by all concerned. He identified the recovery memo dated 19.02.2009 which is already Ex. CW1/3. He also identified the seal handing over memo vide which the CBI seal was handed over to him, which is Ex. CW17/C. The witness also identified 36 Shawls which were seized through recovery memo Ex. CW1/3 on being produced before the court. The said witness was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused.
35. CW18 Dr. S.P. Goyal deposed that with reference to letter already Ex. CW1/1, a sealed packet was received from WCCB for species identification of the items and the seal intact. He deposed that the packet contained five Shawls marked as F-1290/1-5 to F-1290/5-5, hairs present in the Shawls were examined under the microscope and based on the examination, all five Shawls marked as above contained hairs of Tibetan Antelope (Pantholops hodgsonii). Accordingly, report already Ex. CW6/2 was sent to WCCB. He identified letter dated 02.03.2009 addressed to the Director WII from SP CBI vide which a sealed packet was sent for species T PRIYADARSHINI Digitally signed by T PRIYADARSHINI CBI(Wild Life) Vs. M/s Indian Art Gallery Page no. 25 of 67 Date: 2026.03.16 Case No. CBI/292/2019 14:14:49 +0530 RC No. RCSTB/2009/E/0001 identification. The said letter was received in WII with the endorsement of S.K Gupta, Scientist of the said Wildlife Forensic Cell with the seal, which is Ex. CW18/A. He identified the signature of Dr. Gupta. The hair present in the Shawls were examined under the microscope and based on the examinations, all 36 Shawls marked as above contained hairs of Tibetan Antelope. Accordingly, a report Ex. CW1/C was sent to SP CBI through letter Ex. CW1/18. Witness correctly identified the Shawls taken out from the pullanda stating that he had put the particular number upon each Shawls in his own handwriting. He was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused.
36. CW19 DSP Sanjay Dubey (IO) deposed that investigation of criminal case bearing RC no. SIB 2009 E 0001 dated 03.02.2009 registered against M/s Indian Art Gallery was entrusted to him. The case was registered on the basis of information received from Sh. R.K. Pandey, the Deputy Director, WCCB relating to the allegation of attempted export of a consignment containing Shawls of various varieties including Shawls containing Shahtoosh i.e. Hair of Tibetan Antelope vide separate FIR which is Ex. CW6/4. During investigation, CW19 issued a letter bearing no. 804/3/1/2009 EOU-V dated 04.02.2009 addressed to Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Export Shed, Cargo Complex, IGI Airport, New Delhi requesting to provide necessary information/document, which is Ex. CW19/A, in reply vide letter dated 06.02.2009, Assistant Commissioner provided the requisitioned information of documents related to the concerned Shipping bill, which is Ex. CW19/B. The documents included T PRIYADARSHINI Digitally signed by T PRIYADARSHINI CBI(Wild Life) Vs. M/s Indian Art Gallery Page no. 26 of 67 Date: 2026.03.16 14:15:17 +0530 Case No. CBI/292/2019 RC No. RCSTB/2009/E/0001 original bunch of documents related to Shipping bill no. 3488988 dated 04.12.2008, annexures, check list (Ex. CW4/A), original Panchnama dated 15.01.2009 which is already Ex. CW7/A, seizure memo dated 16.01.2009 which is already Ex. CW7/B, original advice dated 16.01.2009 which is Ex. CW7/C, original advice dated 16.01.2009 of customs for keeping the seized goods in safe custody, which is already Ex. CW7/D, original WCCB letter dated 12.01.2009 addressed to the customs authorities through which photocopy of the expert opinion given by WII was communicated by WCCB to Customs Authorities which is already Ex. CW6/6, photocopy of Customs Department/Notice no. 08/2006, which is Mark A and original letter of M/s Indian Art Gallery addressed to the customs authorities dated 19.01.2009, which is Ex. CW19/C. WCCB also provided attested coy of WCCB letter dated 12.12.2008 which is already Ex. CW1/1, original WII Dehradun letter dated 15.12.2008, which is already Ex. CW6/1, original WII letter dated 02.01.2009, which is already Ex. CW6/2, original letter of Customs authorities dated 22.01.2009, which is already Ex. CW6/3. During investigation, on 17.02.2009, CW19 also addressed a letter to GM Bank of Baroda, Parliament Street, New Delhi requesting him to depute a responsible officer for certain proceedings which is Ex. CW19/D. Pursuant to aforesaid letter, Bank of Baroda vide letter dated 19.02.2009 deputed Mr.J.F. Bennat Faria to associate with the proposed proceedings by CBI which is Ex. CW17/A. On 19.02.2009, CW19 issued a letter dated 19.02.2009 to the Superintendent of Customs Cargo Shed requesting them to arrange the T PRIYADARSHINI availability of packages related to SB No. 3488988 for the purpose of Digitally signed by T PRIYADARSHINI proposed proceedings, which is Ex. CW19/E. During inspection Date: 2026.03.16 14:15:21 +0530 CBI(Wild Life) Vs. M/s Indian Art Gallery Page no. 27 of 67 Case No. CBI/292/2019 RC No. RCSTB/2009/E/0001 proceedings, 36 Shawls which were already identified to be identical to the five Shawls containing Shahtoosh were taken out from package no. 4. The aforesaid 36 Shawls were sealed properly and accepted pullanda was prepared and sealed with the seal of CBI and the same was taken into the possession by CBI. The proceedings were recorded at the spot itself which were signed by all the concerned present there which is Ex. CW1/3. The brass seal after used was handed over to at the spot to Sh. J.F. Bennet Faria through a separate memo dated 19.02.2009 which is already Ex. CW17/C. Pullanda of above said 36 Shawls is Ex. CW19/F. He also identified photographs of the pullanda which is Ex. CW19/G. CW19 also issued a letter dated 02.03.2009 to WII for examination of aforesaid 36 Shawls, which is Ex. CW19/H and acknowledgement thereof is Ex. CW18/A. In response thereof, a letter dated 07.09.2009 was received from WII along with the opinion, which is Ex. CW18/B and Ex. CW18/C. CW19 also made an application before the concerned Court with request to issue search warrant under Section 93/94 of CrPC at the premises of Gee Emm Shawls which was allowed, which is Ex. CW19/J. CW19 also made two separate requests to WCCB and Bank of Baroda for deputing one official for the aforesaid purpose which is Ex. CW19/K and Ex. CW19/L respectively. On 26.03.2009, a search was conducted at the business premises of Gee Emm Shawls, showroom as well as office in the presence of independent witnesses, representative of WCCB, which is Ex. CW19/M. Further, a search was also conducted at the godown of the said firm i.e. basement of 3, Feroz Gandhi Road, Lajpat Nagar, Part-III, New Delhi vide search proceedings Ex. CW19/N. CW19 deposed that a bill book which is Ex. TPRIYADARSHINI Digitally signed CBI(Wild Life) Vs. M/s Indian Art Gallery Page no. 28 of 67 by T PRIYADARSHINI Case No. CBI/292/2019 Date: 2026.03.16 14:15:27 +0530 RC No. RCSTB/2009/E/0001 CW19/O as mentioned in D29/1-2 and the bills as mentioned in the above said proceedings were recovered and seized vide seizure memo Ex. CW19/P (colly). CW19 collected the bank documents of the accused which is Ex. CW19/Q. CW19 deposed that certified true copy of original resolution dated 11.02.2009 of M/s Trade Wings limited was collected during investigation which is Ex. CW19/V. A letter was also addressed to WII to return the sealed packet containing 36 Shawls, which is Ex. CW19/W. CW19 deposed that in reply to the notice under Section 160 and 90 of CrPC, Gee Emm Shawls submitted its detailed reply which was collected by CW19 and is Ex. CW19/X. Thereafter, CW19 recorded the statement of the witnesses. The said witness was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused.
37. CW20 Sh. Chandra Bhushan Dubey deposed in post-charge evidence that on 16.01.2009, he was called by the IO to associate as a witness in the seizure proceedings of goods which were lying with export, which was for export to foreign country and the consignee was M/s Indian Art Gallery. CW20 deposed that the consignment was de-sealed in his presence and samples were taken out from the said consignment. CW20 deposed that the consignment was de-sealed in his presence and samples were taken out from the said consignment and thereafter, samples were taken from carton nos.1,2,3 and 5. CW20 deposed that Ex. P-1 to P-5 were taken out in his presence and was sealed again, however, he did not remember how many number of Shawls were there in the packet from which the samples were taken out. The seizure memo is already Ex. CW1/2. CW20 deposed that further proceedings were held on 19.02.2009 at Cargo Shed in his CBI(Wild Life) Vs. M/s Indian Art Gallery Page no. 29 of 67 Case No. CBI/292/2019 Digitally signed by T RC No. RCSTB/2009/E/0001 T PRIYADARSHINI PRIYADARSHINI Date:
2026.03.16 14:18:58 +0530 presence, which is already Ex. CW1/3. CW20 also identified the Shawls which were seized in his presence on being produced before the court. The said witness was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused.
38. CW21 Sh. Nilamadhab Mishra deposed in post-charge evidence that he worked with Standard Chartered Bank in the year 2008 to 2011. He deposed that he did not remember as to when he received documents pertaining to accused from their Jaipur office, which is already Ex. CW19/U. He deposed that through this letter, documents mentioned at serial no. 1,2 and 3 given to the IO. Despite grant of opportunity, he was not cross- examined by Ld. Counsel for accused.
39. CW22 Sh. Bunty Kumar deposed in post-charge evidence that in the year 2008, he was working in M/s Shubham Logistics at Jhandewalan Cycle Market, Delhi-11005. He knew Gee Emm Shawls situated at Lajpat Nagar through M/s Shubham Logistics. He deposed that on 05.12.2008, he went to M/s Shubham Logistics and met one Mr. Shahid. Thereafter, they went to Okhla and hired a vehicle to transport six parcels of M/s Indian Art Gallery and went to Lajpat Nagar. They loaded three more parcels in the said vehicle. Thereafter, they reached airport along with the nine parcels and handed over the said parcels to Customs House Agent. Despite grant of opportunity, he was not cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused.
T PRIYADARSHINI
40. CW23 Sh. Rajender Singh deposed in post-charge evidence that Digitally signed by T PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2026.03.16 while he was working as Customs Housing Agent in M/s Pipe Freight 14:15:42 +0530 CBI(Wild Life) Vs. M/s Indian Art Gallery Page no. 30 of 67 Case No. CBI/292/2019 RC No. RCSTB/2009/E/0001 Forwarding, he was requested by a known person, working in Zion Cargo to join the seizure proceedings of some shipment which was stopped for wildlife violation at IGI Airport. He deposed that CBI officer Mr. Dubey requested him to become a panch witness. He deposed that he signed the seizure memo which is Ex. CW1/2 and also signed on the pullanda which is Ex. CW19/F. Despite grant of opportunity, he was not cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused.
41. CW24 Sh. Narender Kumar Gaur deposed in post-charge evidence that in the month of January 2009, Assistant Commissioner, Customs called to get the stuff in question examined through WII as the stuff was suspected. The examination of Shawls was conducted by Custom Inspector and WLI. He had also signed on the back side of Ex. CW4/A. The WLI had given the report that she was unable to give the correct report and hence, requested to send the same to the lab. Thereafter, they retained the said stuff/packet in the warehouse under the supervision of the Airport Authority. He had signed the panchnama which is Ex. CW7/A. On being cross examined by Ld. PP for the CBI, witness deposed that he was present in the warehouse on 15.01.2009 when the examination of the case property was being conducted. He denied the suggestion that case property was examined at the spot. He deposed that the when the property was examined by the officers, he was present in the warehouse and had signed the memo which is Ex. CW7/A. He deposed that contents of the Panchnama is Ex. CW7/A are correct. He was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused.
T PRIYADARSHINI CBI(Wild Life) Vs. M/s Indian Art Gallery Page no. 31 of 67 Digitally by T signed Case No. CBI/292/2019 PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2026.03.16 RC No. RCSTB/2009/E/0001 14:15:48 +0530
42. CW25 Sh. B.S. Khati deposed in post-charge evidence that on the directions of Regional Deputy Director, Mr. Ramesh Kumar Pandey to receive the sealed samples and deliver the same to WII vide separate letter which is Ex. CW1/1, he went to collect the sample and report in the month of January 2009 under the direction of said Regional Director. He brought back the sealed report along with the sealed parcel and handed over to the Regional Director for further proceedings.
43. CW26 Sh. Manzoor Hussain Bhat deposed in post-charge evidence that vide letter no. IBD/JKB/09-147 dated 27.06.2009 addressed to Inspector of Police, CBI, he had furnished information as desired by letter Ex.CW19/O to the CBI. Vide letter Ex. CW19/R, he had also informed the CBI that the cheque book numbers mentioned at serial no. 1 to 4 in his letter also issued to M/s Indian Art Gallery, account no. 0440010100000259. He further deposed that vide letter Ex. CW19/R, he had furnished the account opening form of account no. 0440010100000259 in the name of M/s Indian Art Gallery and annexure page nos. 5 to 8 of D-31. Despite grant of opportunity, he was not cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused.
44. CW27 Sh. Balbeer Singh Khati deposed in post-charge evidence that on 12.12.2008, the then Regional Deputy Director, Sh. Ramesh Kumar Pandey gave a direction to him to handover a sealed sample (containing five Shawls) and a covering letter to the WII. Accordingly, he visited WII and handed over the said sealed sample and covering letter to the forensic cell of WII. Covering letter no. 3-63/WN/08/1069, dated CBI(Wild Life) Vs. M/s Indian Art Gallery Page no. 32 of 67 T Case No. CBI/292/2019 PRIYADARSHINI RC No. RCSTB/2009/E/0001 Digitally signed by T PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2026.03.16 14:15:53 +0530 12.12.2008 is already Ex. CW1/1 (D-12). Further, on receipt of the message from WII, on 02.01.2009, he collected one sealed envelope containing the expert report and another sealed sample containing analysis report, which is Ex. CW27/1. He submitted the same to the Regional Deputy Director at Bikaner House, New Delhi. He was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused.
45. CW-28 Sh. Ram Chander Morwal deposed in post-charge evidence that on 26.03.2009, he along with CBI team went to the South Delhi area for some investigation with regard to some chaddar made of some wild life animals. He along with CBI team visited the place, the place was owned by some Mohammdan. He deposed that some papers were prepared at the spot regarding the search and he had signed the papers prepared at the spot along with CBI officials. CW28 also identified his signature on the search proceedings which is already Ex. CW19/M. He was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused.
46. CW-29 Sh. Anil Kumar deposed in post-charge evidence deposed that on 15.01.2009, he was going to his house after finishing his job. He received a call from one Lala Ji and Aarti Singh, Inspector and they shown him some Shawls, prepared some documents and he had signed the same, which is Ex.CW7/A. He was not cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused.
CBI(Wild Life) Vs. M/s Indian Art Gallery Page no. 33 of 67 Case No. CBI/292/2019 RC No. RCSTB/2009/E/0001 T PRIYADARSHINI Digitally signed by T PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2026.03.16 14:15:57 +0530
47. CW-30 Sh. Mukesh Kumar deposed in post-charge evidence deposed that in the year 2008, he was working with Gee Emm Shawls at K Block, Lajpat Nagar as a helper and one Mr. Pankaj was also working with Gee Emm Shawls and on his direction he was doing the job. He deposed that the godown of the Gee Emm Shawls was situated at no.3, Firoz Gandhi Road and the showroom was at K-28, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi. He deposed that he did not know about M/s Indian Art Gallery as he had been working with Gee Emm Shawls. Gee Emm Shawls used to sell Shawls etc. Pankaj used to get the packing done from any of his employees. CW30 denied knowledge regarding the bills of Gee Emm Shawls. On being cross- examined by Ld. PP for CBI, he deposed that bills dated 03.12.2008, 04.12.2008 and 05.12.2008 which are Ex. CW19/P were issued by Gee Emm Shawls. He was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused.
48. CW-31 Ms. Suman Dhaulta deposed in post-charge evidence that during the year 2008, he was working with M/s Trade Wings Limited which was a Custom House Agents (CHA) and member of International Air Transport Association (IATA) during the year 2008. CW31 deposed that shipping consignment no.3488988 dated 04.12.2008 of M/s Indian Art Gallery was forwarded by M/s Shubham Logistics Private Limited. CW31 deposed that they used to receive invoice packing list and shipping instruction, on the basis of which they used to generate the airway bill. She deposed that one of the employees of M/s Trade Wings Ltd must have filed it on 04.12.2008 as mentioned in the shipping bill already Ex. CW12/B (colly). Ex. CW4/A (colly) is part of the Ex. CW12/B (colly). She deposed T CBI(Wild Life) Vs. M/s Indian Art Gallery Page no. 34 of 67 PRIYADARSHINI Case No. CBI/292/2019 RC No. RCSTB/2009/E/0001 Digitally signed by T PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2026.03.16 14:16:00 +0530 that she never visited customs, hence, she cannot tell as to who had inspected the consignment as mentioned in Ex. CW4/A. Despite grant of opportunity, he was not cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for accused.
49. CW-32 Sh. Sheikh Firoz Ahmed deposed in post-charge evidence that Gee Emm Shawls was a firm belonging to them which was engaged in the business of Shawls and handicrafts, etc. Partners in the said firm apart from him included Sheikh Zaffar Ahmed, Sheikh Zahoor Ahmed, Sheikh Mohammad Syed, his father Sheikh Gulam Mohammad and Zubair Isaq Khan (son of his sister, Aashifa Isaq Khan). He deposed that the said firm was dissolved in the year 2010 and the business of the firm was mainly looked after by him and they used to have an office and showroom at K-28, Lajpat Nagar-2, New Delhi and godown at 3, Firoz Gandhi Road, Lajpat Nagar-3, New Delhi. He deposed that he knew accused, who was proprietor of M/s Indian Art Gallery, Jaipur as he was their customer and accused used to purchase Shawls, stoles, etc., from them. He deposed that with regard to the transaction on 03.12.2008 and 04.12.2008 with accused, he stated that as it has been about 15-16 years, he is not able to recall the transactions done. After obtaining permission of this Court, his memory was refreshed by showing him his previous statement recorded under Section 161 of CrPC. CW32 was specifically asked to state transaction of his firm with the aforesaid person on 03.12.2008 and 04.12.2008 as to purchase of various Shawls/stoles of different varieties to which, CW32 deposed that as far as he can recollect, their firm had the transaction on the aforesaid dates for purchase of different Shawls/stoles with accused who had come to their T PRIYADARSHINI Digitally signed by CBI(Wild Life) Vs. M/s Indian Art Gallery Page no. 35 of 67 T PRIYADARSHINI Case No. CBI/292/2019 Date: 2026.03.16 14:16:05 +0530 RC No. RCSTB/2009/E/0001 office-cum-showroom first and made selection of items that he would be purchasing and regarding the same the material to be packed from their godown premises. He deposed that accused went to their godown and expressed his desire of doing the packing on his own. Packing for approximately three boxes had been done by accused on his own as had been informed by his staff, namely, Pankaj and Mukesh. He deposed that he cannot state about any suspicion being raised about the packing of the materials purchased by the aforesaid customer. CW32 deposed that their firm Gee Emm Shawls had never indulged in dealing of contraband/prohibited articles/items. Further, through the sale of items as was done on 03.12.2008 and 04.12.2008, none of the items that had been sold by his firm to accused was an article prohibited by law for sale. In fact, CBI had conducted search on both of his premises on 26.03.2009 and had not found even a single article which is prohibited for sale/dealing by law. CW32 identified the documents pertaining to search conducted at his office and godown which is Ex. CW19/O, which was also seized. CW32 identified the bill no. 768 dated 04.12.2008/Ex. CW32/1 of his firm Gee Emm Shawls drawn in favour of M/s Indian Art Gallery on being shown stating that this is the same bill which was drawn on 04.12.2008 for purchase of items by M/s Indian Art Gallery through accused and items sold are detailed therein. He also identified bill no. 763, dated 03.12.2008, part of Ex. CW 19/O (Colly) of the firm M/s Gee Emm Shawls Industries drawn in favour of M/s Indian Art Gallery on being produced before the court stating that this is the same bill which was drawn on 03.12.2008 for purchase of items by M/s Indian Art Gallery through accused and items sold are detailed therein. He stated that CBI(Wild Life) Vs. M/s Indian Art Gallery Page no. 36 of 67 Case No. CBI/292/2019 T RC No. RCSTB/2009/E/0001 PRIYADARSHINI Digitally signed by T PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2026.03.16 14:16:10 +0530 the said bill contains the signature of Ashish Makajani at point A, which is Ex. CW 32/2. CW32 further deposed that he had never dealt in sale of items which has been prohibited by the law and through these bills or otherwise his firm had never supplied such item including Shahtoosh Shawls to M/s Indian Art Gallery dealt with through accused. He was cross examined by Ld. Counsel for accused. On 14.08.2024, CE was closed.
Statement of accused
50. Statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 of CrPC on 18.12.2024. He denied the incriminating evidence against him and claimed to be falsely implicated. Accused desired to lead evidence in defence and examined himself as DW1 by moving an application under Section 315 CrPC.
Defence evidence
51. DW1 Syed Shahid Ahmed Kashani (the accused) deposed that he had been dealing with Gee Emm Shawls since 2004 and he had been exporting Pashmina Shawls and stoles under the name and style of M/s Indian Art Gallery. He used to export the Shawls through authorised agent (CHA agent) namely M/s Shubham Logistics Private Limited who was his authorised agent. They used to come to Gee Emm Shawls Industries at Lajpat Nagar from where they used to send the same to IGI Airport for Customs clearance. The same goods used to be packed in different cartons.
CBI(Wild Life) Vs. M/s Indian Art Gallery Page no. 37 of 67 Case No. CBI/292/2019 RC No. RCSTB/2009/E/0001 Digitally signed by T T PRIYADARSHINI PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2026.03.16 14:19:14 +0530
DW1 deposed that he had no role after handing over the purchase material to CHA (Custom House Agent). He deposed that there were so many CCTV cameras installed at the showroom of Gee Emm Shawls as well as in the godown and that a monitor was also installed at the seat of owner/Manager. The godown had a distance of 200-250 yards from the showroom. He had purchased the exported material from Gee Emm Shawls on 03.12.2008 vide Bill No. 763 and after getting it packed and handing over to Shubham Logistics, the invoice-cum-packing list was also sent to Shubham Logistics Custom House Agent. He had mailed the invoice-cum-packing list on 04.12.2008. The material which was to be exported was kept after purchasing on 03.12.2008 till 04.12.2008 in the godown of Gee Emm Shawls. He had purchased around 1335 Shawls/stoles vide Bill No. 763 dated 03.12.2008. He deposed that it took around 7-8 hours to get the same material packed with the help of 5-6 employees. He deposed that out of 1335 Shawls, 1290 Shawls were packed in five cartons for the export purpose. He used to carry a laptop bag only. He deposed that the Custom Department had called him on 06.12.2008 and he visited the Custom Office on 08.12.2008. The Custom Officials had been inquiring him about the exported items and the whole consignment which was in five cartons. He had shown the Bill No. 763 dated 03.12.2008 issued by Gee Emm Shawls and he was informed by the Custom officials that as per the Wildlife Expert, two Shawls were mixed with suspected hair of Tibetan Antelope (Shahtoosh). He deposed that he informed the Custom officials about that he had no knowledge about it and immediately thereafter, he approached owner, Mr. Sheikh Firoz and told him about the matter. Mr. Sheikh Firoz assured him that those Shawls and Digitally signed by T CBI(Wild Life) Vs. M/s Indian Art Gallery Page no. 38 of 67 T PRIYADARSHINI PRIYADARSHINI Date:
2026.03.16 Case No. CBI/292/2019 14:16:15 +0530 RC No. RCSTB/2009/E/0001 stoles purchased by him were 100% machine made Pashmina and informed that the question of hair of Tibetan Antelope did not arise. Mr. Sheikh Firoz further assured him to supply a copy of report SGS Lab, Hong Kong Which he handed over to him at that time. The said copy of report of SGS Lab is Ex.DW-1/A. Mr. Sheikh Firoz also issued DW1 material authenticity certificate on his company's letterhead, which is Ex. DW1/B. DW1 deposed that during the course of trial, on 22.01.2010, he had written a letter to Kashmiri Chamber of Commerce and Industry in respect of manufacture of Shahtoosh Shawls, which is Ex. DW1/C and he had received a certificate on 25.01.2010 from Kashmiri Chamber of Commerce and Industry stating therein that Shahtoosh Shawls are woven by hand spinning by traditional charkhas only and it could not be made by machine, which is Ex/ DW1/D. The said witness was cross examined by Ld. PP for CBI. Thereafter, vide separate statement of accused, DE was closed vide order dated 27.01.2026.
Final Arguments
52. Thereafter, final arguments in the matter were heard on behalf of both the sides on various dates of hearing. I have heard Ld. PP for the CBI/ Prosecution, Ld. Counsel for the accused and have also carefully gone through the case file including the judgments relied upon and written final arguments of the accused.
T PRIYADARSHINI Digitally signed by T PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2026.03.16 14:16:20 +0530 CBI(Wild Life) Vs. M/s Indian Art Gallery Page no. 39 of 67 Case No. CBI/292/2019 RC No. RCSTB/2009/E/0001 Arguments on behalf of the accused
53. The arguments raised on behalf of the accused are as follows:
a) Firstly, it is averred that the Inspectors of Wildlife Authority have misused the powers vested in them in the present case.
b) Secondly, it is stated that the accused could not have himself packed the articles and thereafter, approached M/s Shubham Logistics Private Limited as a carrying and forwarding agent for shipment of the consignment as the consignment to the firm M/s Rose Perfumes, Oman, Muscat contained 1,290 Shawls.
c) Thirdly, it is stated that out of 32 witnesses examined by the Prosecution, majority of the witnesses which are 23 in number are formal in nature, two are hostile and remaining witnesses are ineffective. The relevant witnesses who have deposed against the accused are stated to be CW1, CW8, CW15, CW18, CW19, CW25 and CW27. It is argued that depositions of said witnesses do not prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
d) Fourthly, with respect to CW1 Ms. Aarti Singh, it is stated on behalf of the accused that she did not have any special qualification with respect to the subject matter. It is also stated that CW1 and CW8 have made contradictory statements with respect to the nature of examination conducted by CW1. It is Digitally signed by T PRIYADARSHINI CBI(Wild Life) Vs. M/s Indian Art Gallery Page no. 40 of 67 T PRIYADARSHINI Date:
2026.03.16 14:16:26 +0530 Case No. CBI/292/2019 RC No. RCSTB/2009/E/0001 pointed out that whilst CW1 has deposed that she had inspected the Shawls with hand lens and not by microscope, on the contrary, PW Ms. Veena Hindwan has deposed that the Shawls were not checked by lens or microscope by Ms. Aarti Singh and that she did not have any equipment with her.
e) Fifthly, Ld. Counsel for the accused has pointed out another contradiction in the statements of CW1 Aarti Singh and CW8 Veena Hindwan. It is argued that whilst CW1 Aarti Singh stated no other person except CW8 Veena Hindwan and CW11 Randeep Singh were present at the time of inspection, CW8 Veena Hindwan stated that there were many people present at the office. In view of the said contradiction, it is stated that the deposition of the witnesses is not reliable.
f) Sixthly, it is argued that the accused is simply a trader and had purchased the items in question from Gee Emm Shawls under the impression that he has purchased only Pashmina Shawls. As per the bill number 763, the purchased items were only machine-made Pashmina and not Shahtoosh. It is also averred that there is no evidence to show that the accused himself packed or mixed the Shawls while packing. It is stated that the accused has not proven beyond reasonable doubt that he himself packed the Shawls.
g) Seventhly, it is stated that the accused cannot be held guilty for an offence of which he has no knowledge and which has not been proven by evidence.
T PRIYADARSHINI CBI(Wild Life) Vs. M/s Indian Art Gallery Page no. 41 of 67 Digitally signed by T PRIYADARSHINI Case No. CBI/292/2019 Date: 2026.03.16 14:16:30 +0530 RC No. RCSTB/2009/E/0001
h) Eighthly, it is stated that it is the case of Prosecution itself that the purchased items/Shawls were lying in the godown of Gee Emm Shawls and were directly handed over to the carrying and forwarding agent M/s Shubham Logistics from the said godown. It is stated that the direct possession of the banned material on behalf of the accused cannot be proved by the Prosecution as the accused was not in direct/active possession of the Shawls. It is stated that merely buying the Shawls from Gee Emm Shawls does not prove active possession of the banned articles.
i) Ninthly, it is further stated that CW15 has specifically stated that CCTV cameras were installed at the godown as well as the showroom of Gee Emm Shawls and a monitor was also kept at the table of the Manager for monitoring. Further, 3-4 boys who were working in the godown namely Pintoo, Mukesh, Sourabh and other were also working in the godown. It is also averred that the IO did not deliberately collect the CCTV footage as the said footage would have shown the innocence of the accused.
j) Tenthly, the accused has stated that the IO ought to have seized the challan book from Gee Emm Shawls. It is pointed out that IO (CW19) has deposed that he was unaware if the challan was prepared in the godown. It is stated that the preparation of the challan was necessary for preparation of bills and the challan book ought to have been seized from Gee Emm Shawls. T PRIYADARSHINI Digitally signed by T PRIYADARSHINI CBI(Wild Life) Vs. M/s Indian Art Gallery Page no. 42 of 67 Date: 2026.03.16 14:16:34 +0530 Case No. CBI/292/2019 RC No. RCSTB/2009/E/0001 It is further averred that the IO has neither collected the CCTV footage nor collected the challan book and has not investigated the case properly and is hand-in-glove with the owner of Gee Emm Shawls.
k) Eleventhly, it is averred that CW-25 and CW-27 are the same person i.e. B.S. Khati, Inspector, Wildlife Crime Control Bureau (WCCB) and the said witness has deposed in his pre- charge evidence that on 12.12.2008, on the direction of Deputy Director Sh. Ramesh Kumar Pandey, visited Wildlife Institute of Dehradun to hand over a sealed sample containing 5 Shawls. He further stated that he was deputed to collect the expert opinion and case property on 15.05.2008. CW B.S. Khati also stated that he did not remember if he stayed at Dehradun from 15.12.2008 to 02.01.2009. It is questioned as to why the case property was submitted on 15.12.2008 when he visited the lab on 15.01.2009. Finally, it is stated that Prosecution has failed to prove as to who took 36 Shawls to Dehradun for examination. It is averred that without examining the said 36 Shawls, report has been generated by the lab.
l) Finally, it is argued that the Prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt as no direct evidence has been placed on record which can show that the accused himself mixed the Shawls while packing. It is also averred that the discrepancies in the statements of witnesses coupled with deficiencies in the investigation has rendered the case unproven T PRIYADARSHINI CBI(Wild Life) Vs. M/s Indian Art Gallery Page no. 43 of 67 Case No. CBI/292/2019 Digitally signed by T PRIYADARSHINI RC No. RCSTB/2009/E/0001 Date: 2026.03.16 14:16:39 +0530 against the accused.
54. The accused has relied upon Rakesh Kumar vs. State (2009 163 DLT 658) wherein it was held that "the well-known rule governing circumstantial evidence from which the inference of the guilt of the accused is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and facts and circumstances so established should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but they must be entirely incompatible with the innocence of the accused".
Findings
55. Section 40(2) of the Act provides that:
"No person shall, after the commencement of this Act, acquire, receive, keep in his control, custody or possession, sell, offer for sale or otherwise transfer or transport any animal specified in Schedule I or Part II of Schedule II or any uncured trophy or meat derived from such animal, or the salted or dried skin of such animal or the musk of a musk deer or the horn of the rhinoceros, except with the previous permission in writing of the Chief Wild Life Warden or the authorized officer."
56. Section 49B of the Act provides that "no person shall commence or carry on the business as a manufacture of, or dealer in scheduled animal articles". Section 51 of the Act provides the following:
CBI(Wild Life) Vs. M/s Indian Art Gallery Page no. 44 of 67 Case No. CBI/292/2019 RC No. RCSTB/2009/E/0001 T Digitally signed by T PRIYADARSHINI PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2026.03.16 14:16:44 +0530 "51. Penalties. (1) Any person who contravenes any provision of this Act (except Chapter VA and section 38J) or any rule or order made thereunder or who commits a breach of any of the conditions of any licence or permit granted under this Act, shall be guilty of an offence against this Act, and shall, on conviction, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both:
Provided that where the offence committed is in relation to any animal specified in Schedule I or meat of any such animal or animal article, trophy or uncured trophy derived from such animal or where the offence relates to hunting in a sanctuary or a National Park or altering the boundaries of a sanctuary or a National Park or where the offence relates to a specimen of a species listed on Appendix I of Schedule IV, such offence shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but may extend to seven years and also with fine which shall not be less than twenty-five thousand rupees: Provided further that in the case of a second or subsequent offence of the nature mentioned in this sub-section, the term of the imprisonment shall not be less than three years but may extend to seven years and also with fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees.
(1A) Any person who contravenes any provisions of Chapter CBI(Wild Life) Vs. M/s Indian Art Gallery Page no. 45 of 67 Case No. CBI/292/2019 T PRIYADARSHINI RC No. RCSTB/2009/E/0001 Digitally signed by T PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2026.03.16 14:16:50 +0530 VA, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven years and also with fine which shall not be less than twenty-five thousand rupees.
(1B) Any person who contravenes the provisions of section 38J shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, or with both:
Provided that in the case of a second or subsequent offence the term of imprisonment may extend to one year or the fine may extend to five thousand rupees.
(1C) Any person, who commits an offence in relation to the core area of a tiger reserve or where the offence relate to hunting in the tiger reserve or altering the boundaries of the tiger reserve, such offence shall be punishable on first conviction with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years, but may extend to seven years, and also with fine which shall not be less than fifty thousand rupees but may extend to two lakh rupees; and in the event of a second or subsequent conviction with imprisonment for a term of not less than seven years and also with fine which shall not be less than five lakh rupees but may extend to fifty lakh rupees. (1D) Whoever, abets any offence punishable under sub-section (IC) shall, if the act abetted is committed in consequence of the abetment, be punishable with the punishment provided for that CBI(Wild Life) Vs. M/s Indian Art Gallery Page no. 46 of 67 T Digitally signed by T PRIYADARSHINI Case No. CBI/292/2019 PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2026.03.16 14:16:56 +0530 RC No. RCSTB/2009/E/0001 offence.
(2) When any person is convicted of an offence against this Act, the Court trying the offence may order that any captive animal, wild animal, animal article, trophy, uncured trophy, meat, ivory imported into India or an article made from such ivory, any specified plant, or part or derivative thereof in respect of which the offence has been committed, and any trap, tool, vehicle, vessel or weapon, used in the commission of the said offence be forfeited to the State Government and that any licence or permit, held by such person under the provisions of this Act, be cancelled.
(3) Such cancellation of licence or permit or such forfeiture shall be in addition to any other punishment that may be awarded for such offence.
(4) Where any person is convicted of an offence against this Act, the Court may direct that the licence, if any, granted to such person under the Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), for possession of any arm with which an offence against this Act has been committed, shall be cancelled and that such person shall not be eligible for a licence under the Arms Act, 1959, for a period of five years from the date of conviction. (5) Nothing contained in section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or in the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (20 of 1958), shall apply to a person convicted of an offence with respect to hunting in a sanctuary or a National CBI(Wild Life) Vs. M/s Indian Art Gallery Page no. 47 of 67 T Case No. CBI/292/2019 PRIYADARSHINI RC No. RCSTB/2009/E/0001 Digitally signed by T PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2026.03.16 14:17:01 +0530 Park or of an offence against any provision of Chapter VA unless such person is under eighteen years of age.
57. Tibetan Antelope (scientific name - Pantholops hodgsonii) is mentioned in serial number 4 of Part I titled Mammals of Schedule I of the Act and therefore, there is a prohibition on manufacture or dealing of any article which has been made from Tibetan Antelope. Dealing of articles made from said animal is punishable under the provisions of Section 49B(1) read with Section 51 of the Act.
58. Section 57 of the Act stipulates the presumption to be made while trying the offences under the Act and is reproduced below:
"57. Presumption to be made in certain cases - Where, in any Prosecution for an offence against this Act, it is established that a person is in possession, custody or control of any wild animal, captive animal, animal article, meat, trophy, uncured trophy, specified plant, or part or derivative thereof or scheduled specimen it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, the burden of proving which shall lie on the accused, that such person is in unlawful possession, custody or control of such wild animal, captive animal, animal article, meat, trophy, uncured trophy, specified plant, or part or derivative thereof or scheduled specimen." Digitally signed by T T PRIYADARSHINI PRIYADARSHINI Date:
2026.03.16 14:17:06 +0530 CBI(Wild Life) Vs. M/s Indian Art Gallery Page no. 48 of 67 Case No. CBI/292/2019 RC No. RCSTB/2009/E/0001
59. Before delving into the details of the case at hand, it is pertinent to note that Shahtoosh Shawls, made out of the finest wool in the world, comes from Tibetan Antelope and many antelopes are killed to produce one shawl. Tibetan Antelopes are endangered high altitude mammal and the animal is properly known as Chiru. As discussed above, trading of Shahtoosh is banned in India. The Shahtoosh shawl trade was banned globally in 1975 under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), to which India is a signatory. Shahtoosh Shawls are also called the 'ring Shawls' as they can be passed through a wedding ring and are much lighter than other Shawls like Pashmina.
60. In Cottage Industries Exposition Limited and another vs. Union of India and others (Decision dated 03.09.2007 of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP Crl. No. 71 of 1997), Shawls which were suspected to be made of Shahtoosh wool were seized. The main question raised was whether the phrase "animal article" excludes "animal hair"? Reference was made to the decision in State of Tamil Nadu vs. Kay Pee Industrial Chemical Private Limited (AIR 2005 Mad 304) wherein it was observed that "since the word 'hair' has specifically been included within the definition of 'trophy' there would have been no need for the Legislature to include it specifically if it was a part of an animal. In Cottage Industries case, it was held that any person who is found to be carrying on trade or dealing in Shahtoosh is liable to proceeded under the Act as Shahtoosh is made from 'hair' which is a derivative of animal Chiru, which falls under the definition of 'schedule CBI(Wild Life) Vs. M/s Indian Art Gallery Page no. 49 of 67 T PRIYADARSHINI Case No. CBI/292/2019 RC No. RCSTB/2009/E/0001 Digitally signed by T PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2026.03.16 14:17:10 +0530 animal article'. It was further held that the wild animal 'Chiru' falls in Part I Schedule I of the Act trading in which is strictly prohibited under Section 49B of the Act.
61. The fulcrum of the complaint is that the accused in his capacity as proprietor of M/s Indian Art Gallery made a conscious and dishonest attempt to export the Shahtoosh Shawls i.e. Shawls containing hair of Tibetan Antelope to M/s Rose Perfumes, Muscat through a consignment of Shawls vide Shipping Bill no. 3488988 dated 04.12.2008 and therefore, is liable to punished under Section 51 of the Act. The accused has neither denied purchase of Shawls from Gee Emm Shawls nor has denied the handing over of 5 packages to Shubham Logistics for export to Muscat. The main argument of the accused is twofold:
a) Firstly, that the packages contained Pashmina Shawls as he merely packed the Shawls purchased from Gee Emm Shawls and Gee Emm Shawls has verified that the Shawls supplied were Pashmina Shawls. Therefore, the seizure of Shahtoosh Shawls from the consignment of the accused is denied and it is stated that the accused has been falsely implicated.
b) Secondly, it is also stated that the Prosecution is hand-in-
glove with the owner of Gee Emm Shawls, thereby, arguing that Shahtoosh Shawls were mixed in the consignment of the accused by Gee Emm Shawls without the knowledge of the accused.
T
PRIYADARSHINI
CBI(Wild Life) Vs. M/s Indian Art Gallery Page no. 50 of 67
Case No. CBI/292/2019 Digitally signed
by T
PRIYADARSHINI
RC No. RCSTB/2009/E/0001 Date: 2026.03.16
14:17:15 +0530
62. On the first limb of defence that the accused had exported only the material which he had purchased from Gee Emm Shawls which were machine-made Pashmina Shawls and liability re: contraband in the consignment has to be imputed upon Gee Emm Shawls, the following are my observations:
a) Firstly, the conduct of the accused has not been commensurate to the allegations of foul play by Gee Emm Shawls. In his examination-in-chief, accused as DW-1 has stated that on 03.12.2008, about 1,335 Shawls/stoles were purchased from Gee Emm Shawls and were packed in five cartons for the export purpose. He has further submitted that the goods provided by Gee Emm Shawls were packed in good faith on the assumption that the said Shawls were Pashmina Shawls.
He has also deposed that on being informed by the Customs officials that two Shawls were mixed with suspected hair of Tibetan Antelope, he immediately approached Mr. Sheikh Feroz Ahmed (CW-32), one of the partners of Gee Emm Shawls, who assured him that the purchased Shawls and stoles were 100% machine-made Pashmina. The said stand of the accused does not explain his subsequent conduct as he has deposed in his cross-examination that he continued working with Gee Emm Shawls till 2011/2012. If there was any foul play by Gee Emm Shawls which led to the false indictment of the accused in the present matter, he would have not continued his business engagement with Gee Emm Shawls.
Digitally signed
CBI(Wild Life) Vs. M/s Indian Art Gallery Page no. 51 of 67
by T
T PRIYADARSHINI
PRIYADARSHINI Date:
2026.03.16
Case No. CBI/292/2019 14:17:24 +0530
RC No. RCSTB/2009/E/0001
b) Secondly, on the allegation re: culpability of Gee Emm
Shawls, it is pertinent to note that search warrant for conducting searches at the office premises of M/s Gee Emm Shawls was issued and the search was conducted on 26.03.2009. The proceedings of the said search are Ex. CW-19/M and Ex. CW- 19/N. The bill book having numbers 751-800 and a file having nine original bills issued by Gee Emm Shawls in favour of firm of the accused i.e. M/s Indian Art Gallery along with a copy of ledger account was seized. The search was conducted by IO Sanjay Dubey and the witnesses were V. Balasubramanian, B.S. Gurm, R.C. Morwal, Jitender Singh and Anuj Pandit. During the said search, no contraband items were seized at the premises of Gee Emm Shawls which could have indicated that they were in the occupation of dealing with illicit/contraband materials.
c) Thirdly, on the allegation that the IO did not deliberately seize the challan book of Gee Emm Shawls, CW32 Sheik Feroz Ahmed, partner of Gee Emm Shawls has stated that no challan book was maintained. Whilst Mr. Pankaj Sharma has deposed that a challan book was maintained by Gee Emm Shawls and bills were prepared on the basis of the challan book, the accused has not been able to point out how the non-seizure of the challan book has impacted the case of the Prosecution especially in light of the fact that the bills and delivery of the Pashmina Shawls have been duly admitted by the accused.
d) Fourthly, on the allegation that the IO has shielded Gee
CBI(Wild Life) Vs. M/s Indian Art Gallery Page no. 52 of 67
Case No. CBI/292/2019 T
PRIYADARSHINI
RC No. RCSTB/2009/E/0001
Digitally signed
by T
PRIYADARSHINI
Date: 2026.03.16
14:17:28 +0530
Emm Shawls by deliberately not seizing the CCTV footage of Gee Emm Shawls, accused / DW1 has deposed that CCTV cameras were installed in the godown/shop of Gee Emm Shawls. It is averred that the IO has deliberately not obtained footage of the CCTV cameras in order to give a clean chit to Gee Emm Shawls and to falsely implicate the accused. In this context, it is pertinent to note that CW32 Sheik Feroz Ahmed, partner of Gee Emm Shawls has stated in his cross-examination that he does not remember if CCTV cameras were installed in the showroom and godown of Gee Emm Shawls. Further, CW28 Ram Chander Morwal who was an independent witness of the search proceedings dated 26.03.2009 conducted at the premises of Gee Emm has deposed in his cross-examination that there were no CCTV cameras installed in the shop. Further, CW-19 Sanjay Dubey (IO) has also deposed in his cross- examination that CCTV cameras were not installed in the premises of Gee Emm Shawls. The sole witness who has stated that CCTV cameras were installed in the showroom as well as godown of Gee Emm Shawls is CW-15 Pankaj Sharma. However, CW-15 has also stated that he did not know if the said cameras were functioning at the relevant time. It is the considered opinion of this court that the non-collection of the CCTV footage by the IO has not hampered the case of the Prosecution. If the defence of the accused is that he did not pack the material and that the packing was done by the workers of Digitally signed by T T PRIYADARSHINI PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2026.03.16 14:17:31 +0530 CBI(Wild Life) Vs. M/s Indian Art Gallery Page no. 53 of 67 Case No. CBI/292/2019 RC No. RCSTB/2009/E/0001 Gee Emm Shawls who dishonestly/surreptitiously included Shahtoosh Shawls in the package, the accused could have moved appropriate application for preservation of the CCTV footage. The accused has not explained why said steps were not taken. Further, if the case of the accused is that the workers packed Shahtoosh Shawls, he ought not to have continued business with them and should have initiated action against them for the said illegal act. Accused has quite contrarily in fact deposed in his cross-examination that he does not think that any wrong has been committed by Gee Emm Shawls and therefore, the contrary stances taken by the accused in his depositions with respect to Gee Emm Shawls has weakened his case.
e) Fifthly, accused/DW-1 in his cross-examination has admitted the invoice-cum-packing list given by his firm which is Ex.CW-12/A. He has also admitted that bill numbers 763 and 768 which are Ex.CW-19/E bear the correct description of material purchased by him and has admitted his signatures on the said bills. In view of the said admission, any averment that Shahtoosh Shawls were included in the package purchased from Gee Emm Shawls deceptively by Gee Emm Shawls does not stand its ground. Further, the accused ought to have shown the motive for the alleged mixing of Shahtoosh Shawls by Gee Emm Shawls as no evidence has been brought on record by the accused indicating the gains that could have accrued to Gee Emm Shawls by exporting the Shahtoosh Shawls deceptively / T PRIYADARSHINI CBI(Wild Life) Vs. M/s Indian Art Gallery Page no. 54 of 67 Case No. CBI/292/2019 Digitally signed by T PRIYADARSHINI RC No. RCSTB/2009/E/0001 Date: 2026.03.16 14:17:36 +0530 surreptitiously along with the Pashmina Shawls of the accused.
f) Sixthly, the accused has stated that he could not have physically packed 1,290 Shawls by himself without the assistance of the staff of M/s Gee Emm Shawls. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that Mr. Sheikh Feroz Ahmed (CW 32), partner of M/s Gee Emm Shawls has stated that the accused was a regular customer for the last three years. He has stated that the accused had packed the material himself and the packages were later tied by one of his employees, Mr. Pankaj Sharma. A similar statement has been given by Mr. Pankaj Sharma. CW15 Mr. Pankaj Sharma has clearly deposed that the accused packed the Shawls and stoles at the godown of Gee Emm Shawls himself. Further, he has stated that the accused denied assistance in packing of the Shawls and was carrying a big bag with him. The accused has not summoned any worker / employee who assisted him in the packing. Further, even if it is admitted that the accused was assisted in packing by other persons, by virtue of Section 57 of the Act, the onus was on the accused to prove that he was not in possession of the goods. The consignment was handed over by the accused to Shubham Logistics and was to be exported to Muscat on his name. In the declaration form for the export of goods i.e. Ex.CW-12/B(colly), the accused has declared that the goods contained Pashmina Shawls and therefore, the responsibility to comply with said declaration was on the accused. In the absence T CBI(Wild Life) Vs. M/s Indian Art Gallery Page no. 55 of 67 PRIYADARSHINI Case No. CBI/292/2019 Digitally signed by RC No. RCSTB/2009/E/0001 T PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2026.03.16 14:17:39 +0530 of any evidence showing that the consignment was contaminated by Gee Emm Shawls, the possession remains with the accused and the presumption remains unrebutted by the accused.
64. On the second limb of defence that the Inspectors of WCCB have misused their powers and that the link evidence is missing, Ld. Counsel for accused has asked questions raising doubts on the expertise of CW-1 Ms. Aarti Singh in distinguishing Shahtoosh from Pashmina. It is averred that CW-1 stated that she inspected the Shawls with hand lens however, CW-8 Ms. Veena Hindwani stated that CW-1 Ms. Aarti Singh had not checked the Shawls with microscope or lens. Further, the Ld. Counsel for accused has pointed out that CW-1 has further stated in her cross- examination that she does not know how to differentiate between handmade and machine-made Shawls. This argument would have helped the case of the accused, if the Prosecution were solely relying on the judgment of Ms. Aarti Singh. It is clearly set out in the chain of proceedings that the forensic examination of the samples was done by WII. The report dated 02.01.2009 of Wildlife Forensic Cell, generated by Dr. S.P. Goyal is Ex. CW-6/2 wherein it is concluded that all five Shawls contained hair of Tibetan Antelope and the report pertaining to the remaining 36 Shawls is Ex. CW1/C. Dr. S.P. Goyal has deposed coherently and consistently as CW6. In view of the conclusive forensic reports of WII stating that the Shawls contained hair of Tibetan Antelope, the questions pertaining to the manner of examination by CW-1 are irrelevant as the Prosecution has proven CBI(Wild Life) Vs. M/s Indian Art Gallery Page no. 56 of 67 Case No. CBI/292/2019 RC No. RCSTB/2009/E/0001 T Digitally signed by T PRIYADARSHINI PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2026.03.16 14:17:43 +0530 beyond reasonable doubt that the seized material consisted of Shahtoosh Shawls.
65. The accused has also averred misuse of powers by Wildlife Inspectors and Customs Authorities by pointing out another inconsistency in the depositions of CW1 Aarti Singh and CW8 Veena Hindwan with respect to the persons who were present at the time of inspection of the Shawls. It is averred that CW1 has stated that on 10.12.2008, she inspected the Shawls in the presence of Customs Inspector Veena Hindwan and Customs House Agent of Trade Wings. She has further stated that she does not remember whether there were any Customs officials apart from the abovesaid persons. It is stated that CW8 Veena Hindwan contrarily deposed that many persons were present at the time of examination. This contradiction is stated to be proof that the seizure proceedings were not conducted properly. The seizure memos/proceedings sheets have been duly exhibited by the Prosecution. The proceedings have been witnesses by independent witnesses who have deposed consistently in Court. Similarly, the averment with respect to CW-1 stating that Mr. Khati stayed in Dehradun till 13.01.2009 is irrelevant as the handover of the seized Shawls and collection of the said Shawls alongwith the report have been duly documented and verified by the concerned parties. The said inconsistency is further immaterial as CW-25 B.S. Khati has deposed that he had gone to deposit the sealed sample and subsequently collected the sealed sample along with the report.
T
PRIYADARSHINI
CBI(Wild Life) Vs. M/s Indian Art Gallery Page no. 57 of 67
Case No. CBI/292/2019 Digitally signed
by T
RC No. RCSTB/2009/E/0001 PRIYADARSHINI
Date: 2026.03.16
14:17:47 +0530
66. In Sansar Vs. State, 1994 (28) DRJ, while dealing with the credibility of search & seizure in a wildlife offence, High Court of Delhi held:
12. As far as the legal proposition is concerned, it is settled law as has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 1964 (3) S.C.R. 237 that the requirements of procedure are generally intended to subserve the ends of justice and so, undue emphasis on mere technicalities in respect of matters which are not of vital or important significance in a criminal trial, may sometimes frustrate the ends of justice. Where the provisions prescribed by the law of procedure are intended to be mandatory, the legislature indicates its intention in that behalf clearly and contravention of such mandatory provisions may introduce a serious infirmity in the proceedings themselves; but where the provisions made by the law of procedure are not of vital importance, but are, nevertheless, intended to be observed, their breach may not necessarily vitiate the trial unless it is shown that the contravention in question has caused prejudice to the accused.
67. With respect to the contradictions in the statements of the recovery witnesses, as argued by the Ld. Counsel for accused counsels, decisions of Supreme Court in Karamjit Singh vs. Delhi Administration (2003 5 SCC 291) and Shyamal Ghosh vs. State of West Bengal (2012 7 T PRIYADARSHINI Digitally signed by CBI(Wild Life) Vs. M/s Indian Art Gallery Page no. 58 of 67 T PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2026.03.16 14:17:51 +0530 Case No. CBI/292/2019 RC No. RCSTB/2009/E/0001 SCC 646) are relevant. In Karamjit Singh (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held:
"9.................................................................................. .................................................................................... In our opinion the learned counsel has tried to make a mountain out of a molehill from a stray sentence in the cross-examination of the witness. In his examination-in-chief which was recorded on 21.05.1994, CW 5 has not stated anything regarding the time when he saw the appellant being interrogated. He was cross- examined on 23.07.1994 i.e. nearly three years and nine months after the incident. After such a long gap he may not be remembering the exact time when he reached the police station. CW 11 Pratap Singh has clearly stated in his cross-examination that SI Kartar Singh had come to the police station in pursuance of a wireless message sent to the Operation Cell by ACP Shakti Singh and that he came after 3.30-4.00 p.m. Therefore, it is not at all possible to discard the testimony of the Prosecution witnesses merely on account of a stray sentence appearing in the cross-examination of CW 5."
68. In Shyamal Ghosh (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held:
"68. From the above discussion, it precipitates that the discrepancies or the omissions have to be material ones and then alone, they may amount to contradiction of some serious CBI(Wild Life) Vs. M/s Indian Art Gallery Page no. 59 of 67 T PRIYADARSHINI Case No. CBI/292/2019 RC No. RCSTB/2009/E/0001 Digitally signed by T PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2026.03.16 14:17:56 +0530 consequence. Every omission cannot take the place of a contradiction in law and therefore, be the foundation for doubting the case of the Prosecution. Minor contradictions, inconsistencies or embellishments of trivial nature which do not affect the core of the Prosecution case should not be taken to be a ground to reject the Prosecution evidence in its entirety. It is only when such omissions amount to a contradiction creating a serious doubt about the truthfulness or creditworthiness of the witness and other witnesses also make material improvements or contradictions before the court in order to render the evidence unacceptable, that the courts may not be in a position to safely rely upon such evidence. Serious contradictions and omissions which materially affect the case of the Prosecution have to be understood in clear contradistinction to mere marginal variations in the statement of the witnesses. The prior may have effect in law upon the evidentiary value of the Prosecution case; however, the latter would not adversely affect the case of the Prosecution."
69. In view of the above legal position, the minor discrepancies in the statements of complainant witnesses are inconsequential as they do not go to the root of the matter especially in light of the fact that the seizure proceedings, the chain of custody of the seized products and the subsequent exhibition of the said products during trial has been done seamlessly and no T PRIYADARSHINI Digitally signed by T PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2026.03.16 CBI(Wild Life) Vs. M/s Indian Art Gallery Page no. 60 of 67 14:18:00 +0530 Case No. CBI/292/2019 RC No. RCSTB/2009/E/0001 contamination of the seized products has been shown or proven by the accused.
70. The Ld. Counsel for accused has also suggested that neither CW1 nor the WII adopted the proper/correct procedure to come to the conclusion whether the said shawl was made of Shahtoosh i.e. Tibetan Antelope hair. Whilst Ld. Counsel for accused has asked questions regarding chemical examination of the Shahtoosh Shawls, however, he has not been able to explain or establish why the examination conducted by WII was inadequate or incorrect. The accused ought to have brought evidence on record in support of his averment that the examination of the Shawls at IGI Airport as well as by WII were not done through proper procedure and should have placed on record literature showing that examination of Shahtoosh Shawls ought to have done chemically and the examination method adopted by WII was improper. In the absence of any such literature, the defence of the accused is merely a conjecture or surmise which does not dent the Prosecution's case.
71. The accused has relied upon the report of SGS Lab which is Ex. DW-1/A and Material Authenticity Certificate which is Ex. DW-1/B. The Ld. PP for CBI has objected to the mode of proof of the aforesaid documents. It is pertinent to note that vide order dated 15.05.2025, the Ld. Predecessor Judge has already disallowed exhibition of said documents for reasons mentioned in the said detailed order. Further, the said documents can be exhibited only by the maker of the documents/report as per rules of CBI(Wild Life) Vs. M/s Indian Art Gallery Page no. 61 of 67 T PRIYADARSHINI Case No. CBI/292/2019 Digitally signed by RC No. RCSTB/2009/E/0001 T PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2026.03.16 14:19:39 +0530 evidence. Neither a representative/official of SGS Lab have been summoned to prove the report of SGS Lab nor has the Certificate of authenticity has been proven by summoning officials of Gee Emm Shawls. Moreover, the report is dated 19.04.2006, however, the case of the CBI is that the illicit goods were purchased on 03.12.2008 and 04.12.2008. Therefore, the report of SGS Lab does not pertain to the goods purchased on 03.12.2008 and 04.12.2008 by the accused from Gee Emm Shawls. In view of the same, as the documents were expressly disallowed by the Ld. Predecessor Judge and the said documents have not been proven by examining the relevant witnesses, the said documents cannot be read in evidence and do not aid the defence of the accused.
72. Further, the accused has also relied upon a certificate dated 25.01.2010 issued by Kashmir Chamber of Commerce and Industries which is Ex.DW-1/C wherein it is mentioned that Shahtoosh Shawls cannot be manufactured by machines as the Shahtoosh wool is of fine and delicate quality. It is pertinent to note that the process of manufacturing of Shahtoosh Shawls is not in dispute in the present matter. The case of the CBI is only that illicit Shahtoosh Shawls were seized from the material which the accused was intending to export abroad. Therefore, the said certificate does not hold any value in the context of the matter in question.
73. The Ld. Counsel for accused has stated that the chain of evidence re: 36 Shawls which were seized from the package no. 4 is inconsistent as it is unclear who deposited the samples at WII. In this CBI(Wild Life) Vs. M/s Indian Art Gallery Page no. 62 of 67 Case No. CBI/292/2019 RC No. RCSTB/2009/E/0001 T Digitally signed by T PRIYADARSHINI PRIYADARSHINI Date:
2026.03.16 14:18:06 +0530regard, it is pertinent to note that it is an admitted fact that as per policy, WCCB is required to examine/inspect consignment relating to herbs, Shawls, wildlife animal products etc. meant for export and issue no- objection certificate in this regard. Vide C.No.VIII /12 /CRU /ACE /leatherandfurarticles/2222/05 dated 31.03.2006, public notice has been issued by Office of the Commissioner of Customs that goods made of animal/plant produce shall be offered for examination by the Wildlife authorities at the Cargo Export Shed before any examination by the Customs officers. The said document is Mark A. It has been stated by CW Biren Sarkar that as per Customs Guidelines, No Objection Certificate from WCCB is required if the consignment consists of Pashmina Shawls. CW Biren Sarkar being the Superintendent, Warehouse, deputed Ms. Veena Hindwan for examination of package no. 1 and 4 of the consignment by Ms. Aarti Singh, Inspector, WCCB. The said inspection was conducted in the presence of Mr. Randeep Singh, CHA on 10.12.2008 during which five Shawls suspected to be Shahtoosh were taken out from package no. 4. On receipt of report that the initially seized 5 Shawls were Shahtoosh Shawls, the entire consignment was subject to 100% examination pursuant to directions of Mr. N.K. Gaur, the then Superintendent of Customs and on 15.01.2009, examination was done by Aarti Singh (CW1) in the presence of Sh. Randeep, CHA Representative and two independent witnesses namely Prashant and Anil Kumar. In this examination, 36 Shawls were found to be Shahtoosh Shawls. The said 36 Shawls were seized by CBI on 19.02.2009 and the seizure memo is Ex. CW1/3. The said seizure was done in the presence of the accused along with other independent witnesses. CW17 CBI(Wild Life) Vs. M/s Indian Art Gallery Page no. 63 of 67 T PRIYADARSHINI Case No. CBI/292/2019 RC No. RCSTB/2009/E/0001 Digitally signed by T PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2026.03.16 14:18:10 +0530 Bennett Faria has deposed in conformity with the seizure proceedings conducted on 19.02.2009. The examination proceedings dated 19.02.2009 of the remaining Shawls from package no. 4 is Ex.CW-1/3. As per record, on 02.03.2009, the remaining 36 Shawls were sent to Director, WII, Dehradun through Mr. Ram Kanwar, ASI, CBI for examination and confirmation as to whether the Shawls contained hair of Tibetan Antelope.
The letter sent in this regard to WII is Ex.CW-19/H. The said package was received on 04.03.2009 as can be seen in Ex.CW-18/A. The report of WII dated 07.09.2009 with respect to the 36 Shawls prepared by Dr. S.P. Goyal is Ex.CW-18/C and confirms presence of hair of Tibetan Antelope in all the Shawls. In this regard, testimony of CW-18 Dr. S.P. Goyal is pertinent. He has deposed in conformity with the reports given by him on behalf of WII concluding that hairs of Tibetan Antelope were found in all the five Shawls as well as the subsequent 36 Shawls which were sent to WII. In his cross- examination, he has denied that only chemical tests are used for examination of Shawls. He has also stated that both Pashmina and Shahtoosh can also be examined chemically. He has further stated that he has not examined whether the Shahtoosh Shawls were hand-made or handloom made. He has denied that he has not examined the Shawls properly. The Prosecution has placed on record the entire chain of custody of the seized Shawls. Independent witnesses have been joined in each proceeding. The said independent witnesses as well as the officials of WCCB and Customs Authorities have been examined and a due opportunity has been given for cross-examining them to the accused. Nothing material has been elicited by the accused in the cross-examination of the said CBI(Wild Life) Vs. M/s Indian Art Gallery Page no. 64 of 67 Case No. CBI/292/2019 RC No. RCSTB/2009/E/0001 T PRIYADARSHINI Digitally signed by T PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2026.03.16 14:19:47 +0530 witnesses. The accused has not been able to establish the allegation of inadequate documentation or failure to adhere to established protocols. Therefore, in the absence of cogent evidence or arguments showing any lapses/gaps in the investigation, the argument that the chain of evidence is improper or that there are procedural lapses stands unsubstantiated and does not cast any aspersion on the Prosecution's case.
74. No questions creating doubt on the legality of the seizure, the manner of examination of the seized articles and the chain of custody of the articles or the seal have been asked to the complainant witnesses on behalf of the accused. Where the defence has not raised any questions on the chain of custody or propriety of sealing of the articles, the prosecution is not bound to explain the chain of custody. [Re: State of Haryana vs. Asha Devi and Another (2015) 8 SCC 39].
75. The Prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that the contraband i.e. Shahtoosh Shawls were found in the consignment which was being exported by the accused. Whilst the physical possession was with the Customs Handling Agent, the constructive possession was with the accused. Therefore, a "shall presumption" operates in favour of the Prosecution by virtue of Section 57 of the Act and this Court has been mandated to presume that the accused is in unlawful possession of the seized contraband. To rebut the said presumption, the accused ought to have presented evidence that rebuts the factum of illegal possession. No such evidence has been led by the accused.
CBI(Wild Life) Vs. M/s Indian Art Gallery Page no. 65 of 67
Case No. CBI/292/2019 Digitally signed
by T
RC No. RCSTB/2009/E/0001 T PRIYADARSHINI
PRIYADARSHINI Date:
2026.03.16
14:18:17 +0530
76. At this stage, it is also noted that accused has been charged under Sections 40/49(1)/49B(1) and 58 of the Act, punishable under Section 51 of the Act. Section 58 of the Act pertains to offences against companies. As the accused firm is a proprietorship firm, aid of Section 58 of the Act is not required to implicate the accused who is the proprietor. A proprietorship firm is not a separate legal entity and the proprietor i.e. the accused is liable for the acts of the firm without application of Section 58 of the Act.
Conclusion
77. In view of the above discussion and evidence on record, Prosecution has succeeded in proving beyond reasonable doubt that the accused Syed Shahid Ahmed, in his capacity as proprietor of Indian Art Gallery, made a conscious and dishonest attempt to export Shawls containing 'Shahtoosh' (i.e. hair of Tibetan Antelope), specified in Schedule (I) of the Act, to M/s Rose Perfumes, Muscat through a consignment of Shawls vide Shipping Bill no. 3488988 dated 04.12.2008, in contravention to the provisions of Sections 40/49(1)/49B(1) of the Act, punishable under Section 51 of the Act. Accused Syed Shahid Ahmed is held guilty for committing the above offences and is convicted accordingly.
Disposal of the case property
78. Shawls containing Shahtoosh (hair of Tibetan Antelope) used in T PRIYADARSHINI CBI(Wild Life) Vs. M/s Indian Art Gallery Page no. 66 of 67 Digitally signed by T Case No. CBI/292/2019 PRIYADARSHINI Date: 2026.03.16 RC No. RCSTB/2009/E/0001 14:18:21 +0530 the commission of a wildlife offence, are the property of the State Government, as per Section 39(1) of the Act. Section 51(2) of the Act provides for disposal of the Government property, according to which the Court after pronouncing conviction, shall order forfeiture of said Shawls used in the commission of the offence to the State Government. Hence, it is ordered that the aforesaid case property are forfeited to the State Government and be dealt with as per Rules.
Digitally signed by T T PRIYADARSHINI
PRIYADARSHINI Date:
Announced in the open Court 2026.03.16
14:18:25 +0530
on 12th March of 2026
(T. Priyadarshini)
CJM/RADC/New Delhi
12.03.2026
CBI(Wild Life) Vs. M/s Indian Art Gallery Page no. 67 of 67
Case No. CBI/292/2019
RC No. RCSTB/2009/E/0001