Delhi District Court
Wildlife vs Naveen Chugh on 25 March, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. MAYANK MITTAL
ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (SPECIAL ACTS)
CENTRAL, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
WILD LIFE VS. NAVEEN CHUGH
CC No. : 13867/2019
CNR No. : DLCT02-030288-2019
Date of Institution : 07.12.2019
Name of the complainant : State through Sh. Raja Ram Meena
Wild Life Inspector, Delhi
Name of accused : Naveen Chugh
S/o Sh. Dayal Dass Chugh
R/o D-15, Punjabi Basti,
Nangloi, Delhi.
Offence complained of : U/s 5 5 o f The Wild
Life (Protection) Act, 1972
Plea of accused : Not guilty
Date of judgment : 25.03.2025
Final Judgment : Acquittal
Brief facts and reasons for decision of the case:-
1 That the complainant has filed the present complaint u/s 55 of The
Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 against the accused. Present
complaint was filed through Wild Life Inspector Sh. Raja Ram
Meena.
1.1 That on 13.02.2018 complainant along with Sh. V.B. Dasan (Wild Life Inspector), Sh. Rohit Kumar, Sh. Birjanand (Forest Guard and Sh. Deepak (Activist of PFA) on direction of CWLW went to PS Nangloi, where activist PFA shared the information with the SHO, then SHO directed SI Pankaj Saroha for taking action on the information of Sh. Deepak, PFA Thereafter, they along with SI Pankaj Saroha reached at H.No.24, PNB wali gali, CC No. 13867/2019 Page No.1 to 24 Nai Basti, Nangloi, Delhi and Sh. Naveen Chugh was found present at that shop. The raiding team disclosed the identity and purpose of their visit to him, thereafter search of the shop was made and 09 Nos. Hatha Jodi, 15 Nos. Shiyar Singhi, 05 Nos. Kasturi and 1.800 kg Kuth Root were recovered, which were identified by Wild Life official vide identification memo dated 13.02.2018. That accused was asked to show any ownership certificate and legal possession of the said articles but he failed to do so. Thereafter, with the direction of court vide order dated 15.02.2018, the case file bearing DD No.69A dated 13.02.2018 and case property in sealed condition was transferred to the Forest and Wild Life Department vide road certificate dated 14.02.2018 and after that case property with the permission of the court dated 19.09.2018 sent to Wild Life Institute of India for expert opinion. That on 08.03.2019 analysis report F-3678/2-2 B was received in which it is opined that sample is monitor lizard and in response to letter dated 12.03.2019 again report was received with same opinion. That the monitor lizard and its parts / products are covered under schedule-I of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. That the accused has contravened the provisions of Section 39, 49 & 49(b) (1) of the wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 punishable u/s 51 of the said Act read with proviso thereto.
2 Charge was framed against accused persons on 03.08.2024 to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3 The complainant examined SI Pankaj Saroha as CW-1, HC Amit as CW-2, Sh. V. B. Dasan as CW-3, Sh. R.R. Meena as CW-4, Sh. Rohit Kumar as CW-5, Sh. Brija Nand Kumar Sah as CW-6 and Dr. S.K. Gupta as CW-7 in evidence:-
CC No. 13867/2019 Page No.2 to 243.1 CW1:- SI Pankaj Saroha deposed that on 13.02.2018, he was posted at PS Nagloi and on that day, Inspector Raja Ram Meena of wildlife along with Staff came to PS and informed about the selling of banned animal articles at the locality, thereafter, IO made a raiding party including HC Amit and himself. Thereafter, they went to shop No. 24, New Punjabi Basti, Nangloi, Delhi where they met the owner of the said shop namely Naveen Chugh and informed all the facts to Naveen Chugh and asked him to search the said shop, then he permitted them to search his shop. Thereafter, they searched the basement of the said shop and found 5 number of kasturi, 15 Siyar Singhi, 9 numbers of hatha jori, 1.8 kg Kuth root. That thereafter, as per the identification of the Inspector Raja Ram, CW-1 prepared two seizure memos of the same Ex. CWI/A and CW1/B bearing his signature at point A. Thereafter, CW-1 sealed the case property by the seal of PS. Thereafter, IO Inspector Raja Ram prepared spot identification memo Ex. CW 1/C on which IO took signatures of CW-1 at point A. Thereafter, CW-1 served notice u/s 91 Cr.P.C Ex. CW 1/D to accused Naveen Chugh for producing the license regarding possession of above said recovered articles, however, accused failed to produce the same. Thereafter, they took the accused to PS and served pabandinama Ex. CWI/E to him to join further investigation. Thereafter, CW-1 released the accused and case property was deposited in Malkhana. That on 15.02.2018, CW-1 produced the case property before the concerned court and thereafter the said case property was handed over to Inspector Raja Ram by the court. Thereafter, accused present in the court on the date of deposition and was correctly identified by the witness.
After that Guard / MHC(M) from Wildlife Department produced CC No. 13867/2019 Page No.3 to 24 the case property and witness stated that those were the same case properties Ex. CW 1/F and CW 1/G which were seized by them in the present case.
3.1.1 During his cross examination it is stated by witness that he was posted in PS Nangloi from the year 2011 to 2019. That Wild Life team came in the PS Nangloi and informed the witness that a raid has to be made in a shop regarding selling of banned wild life articles. That said team included Inspector Raja Ram Meena, however, he did not remember the names of the other members of the team. That the team did not give any description to CW-1 regarding banned articles. That the concerned SHO at that time was informed regarding the raid and thereafter CW-1 along with HC Amit went with the Wild Life team without knowing about the banned articles. CW-1 stated that he had not any personal knowledge regarding the nature of Wild Life articles seized in the present case. That the raiding team did not inform the witness about the shop number in which raid has to be conducted. Witness denied the suggestion that all the seized articles in the present case are not banned Wild Life articles. A question was put to CW-1 "Q. I put it to you that on what basis you are saying that the seized articles are banned wild life articles." to which he replied "Ans. I was informed by the Wild Life raiding team about the banned articles." Witness further denied that the accused is falsely implicated in the present case or that the raid which was conducted in the present case was false and fabricated or that he deposed falsely.
3.2 CW2:- HC Amit deposed that on 13.02.2018, CW-2 was posted at CC No. 13867/2019 Page No.4 to 24 PS Nagloi and on that day Inspector Raja Ram Meena of wildlife along with Staff came to PS and informed about the selling of banned animal articles at the locality. Thereafter. IO made a raiding party including CW-2 and SI Pankaj Saroha. Thereafter, they went to shop no. 24. New Punjabi Basti, Nangloi, Delhi where they met the owner of the said shop namely Naveen Chugh and informed all the facts to Naveen Chugh and asked him to search the said shop. Then accused permitted them to search his shop. Thereafter, they searched the basement of the said shop and found 5 number of kasturi, 15 Siyar Singhi, 9 numbers of hatha jori, 1.8 kg Kuth root. Thereafter, as per the identification of the Inspector Raja Ram, IO Pankaj saroha prepared two seizure memos Ex. CW1/A and CW I/B. That IO sealed the case property by the seal of PS. Thereafter, IO Inspector Raja Ram prepared spot identification memo Ex. CW1/C. Thereafter, IO served notice u/s 91 Cr.P.C to accused Naveen Chugh for producing the license regarding possession of above said recovered articles. However, the accused failed to produce the same. Thereafter, raiding team took the accused to PS and served pabandinama. Thereafter, IO released the accused and case property was deposited in Malkhana. Accused was present in the court today on the day of deposition of witness and correctly identified by the witness. CW- 2 also correctly identified the case property Ex. CW 1/F and Ex. CW 1/G. 3.2.1 During his cross examination CW-2 stated that he was posted in PS Nangloi from the year 2016 till 2021. That the raiding team consisted of four members including Inspector Raja Ram Meena. That he did not remember the names of the other CC No. 13867/2019 Page No.5 to 24 member except Inspector Raja Ram Meena. That CW-2 along with SI Pankaj Saroha went for the raid after the permission of the concerned SHO. That SI Pankaj Saroha informed CW-2 that raid has to be conducted regarding some banned Wild Life articles. That CW-2 did not have any personal knowledge regarding the articles seized in the present case. That he had gone for the raid on the instruction of SI Pankaj Saroha. That SI Pankaj informed CW-2 that raid has to be conducted in the New Punjabi Basti area / PNB wali gali. That the exact number of shop was not informed to CW-2. That accused in the present case is running a 'pansari shop' in the PNB Gali. That there were other pansari shops in the same gali. That there is one pansari shop next to two three shops of accused shop. Witness denied the suggestion that he along with the raiding team mistakenly went to the shop of the accused. That he did not have any personal knowledge about the nature of the case property seized in the present case, however, he was informed by the Wild Life raiding team. It is further denied by the witness that all the seized articles in the present case are not banned Wild Life articles. That he could not say about the positiveness of the case property or that the case property in the present case is planted upon the accused or that the accused is falsely implicated in the present case or that witness deposed falsely.
3.3 CW-3: Sh. V. Bharathydasan deposed that on 13.02.2018, in the evening witness and Sh. R.R. Meena received a secret information from Mr. Deepak from NGO and he met our Chief Wild Life Warden in the office, who directed Sh. R.R. Meena and CW-3 to CC No. 13867/2019 Page No.6 to 24 attend the complaint and proceed as per law with the assistance of police. Accordingly, they proceeded to PS Nangloi and shared the information to the concerned SHO, given to them by Mr. Deepak regarding illegal trading of wildlife articles. Accordingly, SHO directed SI Pankaj Saroha along with Ct. Amit to accompany CW- 3 and Sh. R.R. Meena and to take necessary action as per law. Then they reached Shop No.24, Naya Basti, Punjab National Bank Gali, which is a pansari shop. They disclosed their identity to Mr. Naveen Chugh (accused present in the court and correctly identified by the witness) who was found on the spot in the said shop and stated himself to be the owner of the said shop. Persons of raiding team offered their personal search to accused and informed him their purpose to visit. Then accused allowed them to search the premises of the said shop. In the basement, they found some wildlife articles which are covered under Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 and as per law it is banned to keep, control, deal or trade in those articles in commercial / business places. Then SI Pankaj asked the accused to produce legal documents regarding those wildlife articles but accused could not produce any legal documents to keep those wildlife articles in his custody. Then SI Pankaj prepared spot identification memo Ex. CW 1/C, then he seized the above mentioned wildlife articles by sealing them in a plastic container and then seized vide memo Ex. CW 1/A and Ex. CW 1/B. That the said articles were kuth roots (1.8 kg), 9 hatha jodi (genetals of monitor lizard) and 15 jackal nails (siyaar seengh), 5 musk deer and witness correctly identified the case property Ex. CW 1/F and Ex. CW 1/G. 3.3.1 During his cross examination CW-3 deposed that he was CC No. 13867/2019 Page No.7 to 24 posted as Wild Life Inspector since April 1990 till 31.12.2020. That the secret informer came to Wild Life office at around 6:15 PM and met Chief Wild Life Warden. CW-3 along with Sh. R.R. Meena, Rohit Kumar and Birja Nand (both Forest Guard) went to PS Nangloi and reached there by 7:15 PM. That informer Mr. Deepak and Sh. R.R. Meena (Wild Life Inspector) met the SHO after reaching the PS and told him that they have information of wildlife articles being illegally stored in a shop in that area but Mr. Deepak did not share the shop number with anybody till then. Mr. Deepak intentionally did not disclose the shop number to anybody because it was a confidential information and after reaching the spot he pointed out the particular shop. Upon reaching the shop, CW-3 did not ask the accused as to since how many years he was running the said shop. Upon the first look, CW-3 was able to identify the articles as banned wildlife articles, but still sent them for expert opinion. CW-3 could identify the above mentioned articles as real by smelling them and by their physical, morphological and biological external features and as per his knowledge and expertise in wild life experience. Witness further staed that it is very rare that his identification can go wrong. Witness denied the suggestion that all the articles recovered from accused were not genuine / real. Witness admitted that accused is running a pansari shop and selling pooja articles. It is further denied by the witness that recovered articles were simple pooja articles and no banned wildlife articles. CW-3 stated that he could not say whether accused had knowledge about banned wildlife articles or not. It is further denied by the witness that accused neither had knowledge nor he deal with such articles, hence, he CC No. 13867/2019 Page No.8 to 24 had knowledge or requirement for obtaining a license for the same. That the govt. had banned such articles since 1991. Witness further deposed that he was not aware that accused was running the shop since 1957. That the seized case property was sent to Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun for expert opinion. It is denied by the witness that accused has been falsely implicated in the present case and all the articles which were found in his possession were mere pooja samagri and accused had no knowledge or concern about the banned wildlife articles or that the articles which were recovered / found from the shop of the accused were in his legal possession and none of the articles are genuine / real belonging to the banned list or that he deposed falsely.
3.4 CW-4: Sh. R.R. Meena deposed that on 13.02.2018, in the evening CW-4 and Sh. Bharthydasan received a secret information from Mr. Deepak of NGO and he met Chief Wild Life Warden in the office, who directed CW-4 and Sh. Bharthydasan to attend the complaint and proceed as per law with the assistance of police. Accordingly, they proceeded to PS Nangloi and shared the information to the concerned SHO, provided to them by Mr. Deepak regarding illegal trading of wildlife articles. Accordingly, SHO directed SI Pankaj Saroha along with Ct. Amit to accompany them and to take necessary action as per law. Thereafter they reached Shop No.24, Naya Basti, Punjab National Bank Gali, which is a pansari shop. Raiding team disclosed their identity to Mr. Naveen Chugh (accused present in the court and correctly identified by the witness) who was found on the spot in the said shop and stated himself to be the owner of the said shop. They CC No. 13867/2019 Page No.9 to 24 offered their personal search to him and informed him their purpose of visit / search. Then accused allowed them to search the premises of the said shop. In the basement, we found some wildlife articles which were covered under Wild Life Protection Act, 1972 and as per law it is banned to keep, control, deal or trade in those articles in commercial / business places. Then SI Pankaj asked the accused to produce legal documents regarding those wildlife articles but accused could not produce any legal documents to keep those wildlife articles in his custody. Then SI Pankaj prepared spot identification memo Ex. CW 1/C, then he seized the above mentioned wildlife articles by sealing them in a plastic container and then seized vide memo Ex. CW 1/A and Ex. CW 1/B. That on 15.02.2018, the case property was produced before hon'ble court with the request that the said property may be sent to Wildlife Institute for expert opinion. By the order of the court the case property was sent to Wildlife Institute for expert opinion. Thart the expert opinion report was received and as per it, it was concluded that the sample belong to monitor lizard which was covered under Shedule-I of Wildlife Protection Act. Thereafter, CW-4 filed complaint Ex. CW 4/A. CW-4 identified the case property Ex. CW 1/F and Ex. CW 1/G. 3.4.1 During his cross examination CW-4 stated that he was posted as Wild Life Inspector since April 1990 till 30.09.2020. The secret informer came to Wild Life Office at around 6:15 PM and met Chief Wild Life Warden. CW-4 along with Sh. Bhartiydasan, Rohit Kumar and Birja Nand (both Forest Guard) went to PS Nangloi and reached there by 7:15 PM. That the informer Mr. Deepak and Sh. R.R. Meena (Wild Life CC No. 13867/2019 Page No.10 to 24 Inspector) met the SHO after reaching the PS and told him that they have information of wildlife articles being illegally stored in a shop in that area but Mr. Deepak did not share the shop number with anybody till then. Mr. Deepak intentionally did not disclose the shop number to anybody because it was a confidential information and after reaching the spot he pointed out the particular shop. Upon reaching the shop, CW-4 did not ask the accused as to since how many years he was running the said shop. Prima facie, CW-4 was able to identify the articles as banned wildlife articles, but still sent them for expert opinion. CW-4 could identify the above mentioned articles as real by smelling them and by their physical, morphological and biological external features and as per his knowledge and expertise in wild life experience. It is submitted by witnessthat it is very rare that his identification can go wrong. CW-1 denied the suggestion that all the articles recovered from accused were not genuine / real. It is admitted by witness that accused is running a pansari shop and selling pooja articles. It is further denied that the recovered articles were simple pooja articles and no banned wildlife articles. CW-4 stated that he could not say whether accused had knowledge about banned wildlife articles or not. It is further denied that accused neither had knowledge nor he deals with such articles, hence, he had knowledge or requirement for obtaining a license for the same. That the govt. had banned such articles since 1991. Witness stated that he was not aware that accused is running the shop since 1957. It is further denied that accused has been falsely implicated in the present case and all the articles which were found in his possession were mere pooja samagri and accused CC No. 13867/2019 Page No.11 to 24 had no knowledge or concern about the banned wildlife articles or that the articles which were recovered / found from the shop of the accused were in his legal possession and none of the articles are genuine / real belonging to the banned list. It is admitted by witness that out of the four articles sent for expert opinion, the report came conclusively as wildlife article only with regard to the sample of monitor lizard (varanus bengalensis) or that all the seized articles were sent for expert opinion. CW-4 stated that he was not aware that in whose name the said shop was registered however, voluntarily stated that As per information given by accused he was the proprietor of the said shop and denied the suggestion that he deposed falsely.
3.5 CW-5: Sh. Rohit Kumar Yadav deposed that on the day of deposition he was working as Assistant Teacher in Directorate of Education, GNCTD Delhi and posted at GSBV, Khajuri Khas, Delhi. That on 13.02.2018, he was posted as Forest Guard in the Department of Forest & Wildlife, GNCTD at Vikas Bhawan, Delhi. That on that day he joined the proceedings with Sh. R.R. Meena and Sh. Bharthydasan both wildlife Inspector and another Forest Guard Sh. Brija Nand and went to police station Nangloi. They were accompanied by SI Pankaj and Ct. Amit and went to Shop No.24, Naya Basti, Punjab National Bank Gali, which is a pansari shop. One Mr. Deepak also accompanied them and led them to the said shop. They disclosed their identity to Mr. Naveen Chugh (accused present in the court and correctly identified by the witness) who was found on the spot in the said shop and stated himself to be the owner of the said shop. They offered their personal search to him and informed him their purpose of visit / CC No. 13867/2019 Page No.12 to 24 search. Then accused allowed them to search the premises of the said shop. In the basement, some wildlife articles were found which were identified by the above said Wildlife Inspectors. The spot identification memo Ex. CW 1/C was prepared which bears his signature at point D and also identified the case property Ex. CW 1/F and Ex CW 1/G. 3.5.1 During his cross examination he stated that he was posted as Forest Guard since 18.12.2016 to 29.11.2019 and thereafter he joined the Education Department. That the secret information was received by the Wildlife Inspectors and CW-5 did not know anything about it. CW-5 did not enquire from the accused about his status in the said shop or the articles recovered from it as there queries were confirmed by the IO and Wildlife Inspector. Witness denied the suggestion that accused has been falsely implicated in the present case and all the articles which were found in his possession were mere pooja samagri and accused had no knowledge or concern about the banned wildlife articles or that the articles which were recovered / found from the shop of the accused were in his legal possession and none of the articles are genuine / real belonging to the banned list or that he deposed falsely.
3.6 CW-6: Sh. Brija Nand Kumar Sah deposed that on 13.02.2018, he was posted as Forest Guard in the Department of Forest & Wildlife, GNCTD at Vikas Bhawan, Delhi. That on that day I joined the proceedings with Sh. R.R. Meena and Sh. Bharthydasan both wildlife Inspector and another Forest Guard Sh. Rohit Yadav and went to police station Nangloi. They were accompanied by SI Pankaj and Ct. Amit and went to Shop No.24, Naya Basti, Punjab CC No. 13867/2019 Page No.13 to 24 National Bank Gali, which is a pansari shop (pooja samagri shop). One Mr. Deepak from NGO also accompanied them and led them to the said shop. They disclosed their identity to Mr. Naveen Chugh (accused present in the court and correctly identified by the witness) who was found on the spot in the said shop and stated himself to be the owner of the said shop. They offered their personal search to him and informed him our purpose of visit / search. Then he allowed them to search the premises of the said shop. In the basement, some wildlife articles were found which were identified by the above said Wildlife Inspectors. CW-6 identified the case property Ex. CW 1/F and Ex. CW 1/G. 3.6.1 During his cross examination CW-6 stated that he was working as Forest Guard since 18.12.2016 till today. The secret information was received by the Wildlife Inspectors and he did not know anything about it. CW-6 did not enquire from the accused about his status in the said shop or the articles recovered from it as those queries were confirmed by the IO and Wildlife Inspector. Witness denied the suggestion that accused has been falsely implicated in the present case and all the articles which were found in his possession were mere pooja samagri and accused had no knowledge or concern about the banned wildlife articles or that the articles which were recovered / found from the shop of the accused were in his legal possession and none of the articles are genuine / real belonging to the banned list or that he deposed falsely.
3.7 CW-7 Dr. S.K. Gupta deposed that he is serving in WFCG Cell, Wild Life Institute of India, Chandrabani, Dehradun, Uttrakhand and had examined the biological sample of monitor lizard CC No. 13867/2019 Page No.14 to 24 (varanus bengalaensis) and the same was referred by the Chief Wild Life Warden, Govt. of NCT of Delhi. That he had made analysis report on 27.02.2019 and report dated 27.02.2019.
3.7.1 During his cross examination it is submitted that for sampling, CW-7 had received two sealed plastic container marked by them as F-3678/1-2 and F-3678/2-2. That in the container No.1-2, there were plant material and in container No.2-2, there were three biological samples of multiple animals. Witness denied the suggestion that he had only given the result analysis of sample marked as F-3678/2-2B. That he had not examined the sample marked as F-3678/1-2. That as per his knowledge, no one in the lab had analyzed sample mark F- 3678/1-2. Witness further denied the suggestion that he had not examined any of the sample in this case and his report qua sample marked as F-3678/2-2B is false and fabricated one or that witness deposed falsely.
4 Upon conclusion of CE, statement of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C recorded on 23.01.2025 and he chose not to lead evidence in his defence.
5 During arguments it is submitted by learned APP that in the present case, on receiving information from a Wild Life Activist, a raid / search was conducted at the shop of accused No.1 by the inspection team including the inspectors of Wild Life Department as well as the Member of Delhi Police. It is submitted that from the shop of the accused, 5 kasturi, 9 hatha jodi and 15 shiyar singhi were recovered. It is submitted that the said articles were sent to Wild Life Institute of India, Dehradun. It is submitted that as per report of Wild Life Institute, Dehradun Ex. CW 7/A, one of the article recovered from the shop of accused is sample of monitor lizard (varanus CC No. 13867/2019 Page No.15 to 24 bengalemsis). It is submitted as monitor lizard is schedule-I species under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, accused is liable for conviction and punishment under Section 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. It is submitted that the complainant witnesses examined during post charge evidence have proved the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. A request has been made to convict and punish the accused accordingly.
6 Learned counsel for accused has vehemently opposed the submissions of learned APP for state. It is submitted that case of complainant has no legs to stand. It is submitted that the complainant has for reason best known to it, has not examined the informant as witness who had given information to the department as well as police about the availability of wild life articles at the shop of accused. It is submitted that same shows that there was no information regarding availability of wild life articles at the shop of accused and whole proceedings has been conducted to harass the accused for reason best known to the complainant. It is submitted that accused is a law abiding citizen of India and had started sitting on the pooja samagri shop of his father after his death. It is submitted that not only the alleged article recovered from the place of accused but also that accused has no knowledge about the availability of all the materials available at the shop. It is further submitted that the search and inspection of the shop was not in accordance with provisions of law as no public person was joined by the inspecting team at the time of said search. It is further submitted that more surprisingly 5 kasturi, 9 hatha jodi and 15 shiyar singhi have allegedly been recovered from the shop of accused and same have been sent to the Wild Life Institute for examination admittedly in two containers F-3678/1-2 and CC No. 13867/2019 Page No.16 to 24 F-3678/2-2, however, for reasons best known to the Wild Life Institute, the result of only F-3678/2-2B has been submitted before the court alleging to be sample of monitor lizard. It is submitted that for reasons best known to the Wild Life Institute of India, the other two biological samples contained in F-3678/2 and sample contained in F-3678/1-2 has not even been examined. It is submitted that the same fact has been admitted by CW-7 Dr. S.K. Gupta, Scientist, WF CG Cell, Wild Life Institute of India. It is submitted that sample has not been examined in totality without giving any reasons, which shows that the result Ex. CW 7/A filed on behalf of complainant is not correct report of Wild Life Institute of India as it was not supposed to give partial report of examination. It is submitted that it appears that report Ex. CW 7/A is a tampered report, which has been filed just to secure conviction of accused by hook or by crook. Further it is submitted that the report Ex. CW 7/A is not worthy of placing any reliance as it just mentions that 'the sample examined marked as F-3678/2-2B was undertaken up for DNA based analysis, from DNA sequence data, it is concluded that the sample is of monitor lizard (varanus bengalensis)'. It is submitted that report Ex. CW 7/A does not provide the criteria, on the basis of which, it has been concluded by the scientific expert that sample examined by him is sample of monitor lizard (varanus bengalensis). It is submitted that even if the irregularity in search is to be ignored for a while, no case brought by complainant by way of present complaint could be proved against accused in view of partial report of scientific examination Ex. CW 7/A filed on behalf of complainant, which does not provide the criteria on the basis of which the said report was prepared. 7 Before proceeding ahead, it is beneficial to refer to the relevant provisions of Wild Life Protection Act with regard to question and CC No. 13867/2019 Page No.17 to 24 issues which this court has to decide.
49. Purchase of captive animal, etc., by a person other than a licensee.
--No person shall purchase, receive or acquire any captive animal, wild animal, other than vermin, or any animal article, trophy, uncured trophy or meat derived therefrom otherwise than from a dealer or from a person authorised to sell or otherwise transfer the same under this Act: [Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to a recognised zoo subject tothe provisions of section 38-1 or to a public museum.
51. Penalties.--(1) Any person who 1[contravenes any provision of this Act 2[(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 3[three years], or with fine which may extend to 4[twenty-five thousand rupees], or with both:
5[Provided that where the offence committed is in relation to any animal specified in Schedule I or Part II of Schedule II 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, 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 ten 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 twenty-five thousand rupees.]6 [(1A) Any person who contravenes any provisions of Chapter VA, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than 7[three years]but which may extend to seven years and also with fine which shall not be less than 8[ten thousand rupees].]9 [(1B) Any person who contravenes the provisions of section 38J, shall be CC No. 13867/2019 Page No.18 to 24 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 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 1(c) shall, if the act abetted is committed in consequence of the abetment, be punishable with the punishment provded for that 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,10[uncured trophy, meat, ivory imported into India or an article made from such ivory, any specified plant, or partor 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 CC No. 13867/2019 Page No.19 to 24 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 Park or of an offence against any provision of Chapter VA unless such person is under eighteen years of age.] 8 From the consideration of arguments and from perusal of record, it is noted that though prosecution is submitting that it has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, however, on behalf of accused the legality of search proceedings and the defective report of scientific examination has been vehemently pointed out to seek acquittal for the accused.
9 When the point of inappropriate / illegal search raised by learned counsel for accused is considered, it is noted that as per Section 100 Cr.P.C. unless it is not possible to join public / independent witnesses, the inspecting team should request at least two public / independent persons available near the spot to be searched to join search and search should be conducted in their presence and search memo should be signed by them as witness. There is no doubt or dispute that in the case at hand no such public witnesses have been joined by the IO of the case, despite the fact that the search / raid was conducted at 7:40 PM at the shop of accused which is situated in New Punjabi Basti, Nangloi, Delhi which must be the area full of the public persons at that time. The non joining of public witness at that time of search / raid without any reasonable ground for non joining the public / independent witnesses does not rule out the probability / possibility of implantation of searched articles by the search team itself and also raises a question on the impartiality and genuineness of the search.
CC No. 13867/2019 Page No.20 to 24Hon'ble Apex Court and hon'ble High Courts in number of judgments have explained that mere non joining of public or independent witnesses shall not necessarily vitiate the prosecution or trial. Hon'ble Apex Court in Gian Chand and Ors vs. State of Haryana AIR 2013 SC 3395 has quoted with approval the view of its earlier bench in Appabhai & Anr. vs. State of Gujrat wherein, it has been observed by hon'ble Apex Court:-
"The prosecution case cannot be thrown out or doubted on that ground alone. Experience reminds us that civilized people are generally insensitive when a crime is committed even in their presence. They withdraw both from the victim and the vigilante. They keep themselves away from the Court unless it is inevitable. They think that crime like civil dispute is between two individuals or parties and they should not involve themselves. This kind of apathy of the general public is indeed unfortunate, but it is there everywhere whether -in village life, towns or cities. One cannot ignore this handicap with which the investigating agency has to discharge its duties."
10 As per the position of law explained by hon'ble Apex Court, the non joining of public / independent person does not per se vitiate the case of complainant / prosecution and the facts of the case have to be considered in totality, so as to arrive the correct conclusion by the court whether or not the non joining of public / independent person has vitiated or affected prejudicially the right of accused person. 11 The second arguments advanced on behalf of accused pertains to illegality in the scientific examination of the alleged article recovered from the shop of accused and incomplete / void report of examination filed by the complainant. It is noted that CW-7 Dr. S.K. Gupta has admitted that he had received two sealed plastic containers, which were marked by them as F-3678/1-2 and F-3678/2-2. During his cross examination CW-7 Dr. S.K. Gupta has stated that in container No. F-
CC No. 13867/2019 Page No.21 to 243678/2-2, there were three biological samples of multiple animals and admitted that he had only given report of analysis of sample marked as F-3678/2-2B. There is no justification either by CW-7 Dr. S.K. Gupta during his cross examination or by complainant during final arguments as to why Wild Life Institute of India has not considered the requirement and importance of examining other part of the sample sent to the Wild Life Institute of India. Further, the court finds substance in the submissions of learned counsel for accused that the report of CW-7 Ex. CW 7/A is cryptic in nature as it does not provide the differential criteria on the basis of which the sample of monitor lizard allegedly found in the sample F-3678/2-2B has been differentiated from any other sample of lizard or any other living species. The court at this stage deems it appropriate to refer to the pronouncement of hon'ble superior courts with regard to the report of export / scientific examination filed during the trial of the case. In case of Chennadi Jelapathi Reddy vs Baddam Pratapa Reddy, (2019) 14 Supreme Court Cases 2020, it is observed by hon'ble Apex Court:
10. By now it is well settled that the court must be cautious while evaluating expert evidence, which is a weak type of evidence and not substantive in nature. It is also settled that it may not be safe to solely rely upon such evidence, and the court may seek independent and reliable corroboration in the facts of a given case. Generally, mere expert evidence as to a fact is not regarded as conclusive proof of it.
Further, in case of Prem Sagar Manocha vs State (NCT of Delhi), (2016) 4 Supreme Court Cases 571, in which a judgment Ramesh Chandra Agrawal vs Regency Hospital Ltd., is referred and wherein it is observed that:
18. An expert is not a witness of fact and his evidence is really of an advisory character. The duty of an expert witness is to furnish the Judge CC No. 13867/2019 Page No.22 to 24 with the necessary scientific criteria for testing the accuracy of the conclusions so as to enable the Judge to form his independent judgment by the application of these criteria to the facts proved by the evidence of the case. The credibility of such a witness depends on the reasons stated in support of his conclusions and the data and material furnished which form the basis of his conclusions.
Further in case of Pattu Rajan vs State of Tamilnadu, (2019) 4 Supreme Court Cases 771, it is observed that
51. Undoubtedly, it is the duty of an expert witness to assist the Court effectively by furnishing it with the relevant report based on his expertise alongwith his reasons, so that the Court may form its independent judgment by assessing such materials and reasons furnished by the expert for coming to an appropriate conclusion. Be that as it may, it cannot be forgotten that opinion evidence is advisory in nature and the court is not bound by the evidence of the experts.
12 In the case at hand, scientific examination of case property allegedly recovered from the accused is the most important aspect of investigation as the defence of accused has been that he is running a pooja samagri shop and has nothing to do with the wild life species the possession and trade of which is prohibited under the Wild life (Protection) Act. However, the scientific examination report Ex. CW 7/A, does not inspire confidence of the court for the reasons that the Wild life Institute of India has not explained the reasons of picking and choosing only part of one sample out of two samples received by them and not examining the other samples till date. Further, the cryptic report of scientific examination Ex. CW 7/A also can not become the basis of conviction of accused as it does not provide the differential criteria on the basis of which the sample in question was distinguished from samples of other species, which are not monitor lizard.
CC No. 13867/2019 Page No.23 to 2413 On the basis of above discussion, the court is of considered view that firstly, the search conducted by the complainant at the shop of accused was not legal and secondly, the report of scientific examination Ex. CW 7/A does not inspire the confidence of the court for reasons stated above and can not become the basis of conviction of accused. Accordingly, accused is acquitted for offence under Section 51 of the Wild life (Protection) Act, 1972 as the complainant could not prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused. Announced in open court on this 2 5 t h M a r c h 2 0 2 5 Digitally signed by MAYANK MAYANK MITTAL MITTAL Date: 2025.03.25 16:44:47 +0530 MAYANK MITTAL ACJM(Special Acts), CENTRAL TIS HAZARI COURTS DELHI This judgment consists of 24 pages and each and every page of this judgment is signed by me.
CC No. 13867/2019 Page No.24 to 24