Delhi District Court
Wild Life (Cbi) vs . Bashir Ahmed Mir on 1 February, 2019
IN THE COURT OF SH. PAWAN SINGH RAJAWAT:
ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (Spl. Acts):
CENTRAL: TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
CC No. 59/16
Wild Life (CBI) Vs. Bashir Ahmed Mir
JUDGMENT
(a) Date of commission of offence: 13.05.2003
(b) Name of complainant : Sh. H.S. Chopra
(c) Name, parentage and : Bashir Ahmed Mir and address of the accused S/o Mohd. Jaffar Mir R/o AB-21, 3rd Floor, church Lane, Jungpura (Bhogal), New Delhi
(d) Offence complained of/ proved: U/s 55 of the Wild Life(Protection) Act,1972 punishable U/s 51 of the said Act.
(e) Plea of all accused :Pleaded not guilty.
(f) Final order : Convicted (g) Date of such order 01.02.2019 Date of institution : 30.09.2003
Arguments heard/order reserved:17.01.2019 Date of Judgment : 01.02.2019
1. The complainant Sh. H.S. Chopra, the then Additional Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, Delhi filed the present complaint alleging contravention of the provisions of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (for short the 'Act') against the accused Sh. Bashir Wild Life (CBI) Vs. Bashir Ahmed Mir CC No.59/2016 1 Ahmed Mir.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 12.05.2003, a secret information was received against Sh. Bashir Ahmed Mir that he is indulging in the illegal trading of shahtoosh shawls at AB-21, 3rd Floor, Church Lane, Bhogal New Delhi. Accordingly, on 13.05.2003, CBI team under the supervision of the then DSP M.C. Sahni and other officers of CBI along with two independent witnesses conducted raid and recovered 45 shahtoosh shawls and 2 kurtas made of shahtoosh from the premises. Apart from shahtoosh shawls some visiting cards, bill books and currency notes of Rs. 1,38,000/- were also recovered from the possession of the accused. It is further mentioned that all the suspected case property were sent to the Director, Wild Life Institute(WII), Dehradun for examination and it has been opined that total 45 shawls and 2 kurtas are made of shahtoosh and were found in conscious possession of accused Bashir Ahmed Mir and as such he has committed the offence u/S 49-B punishable u/S 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.
3. On the complaint cognizance was taken and accused were summoned. Accused appeared and copies of complaint alongwith other documents were supplied to them and matter was fixed for pre-charge evidence.
4. After completion of pre-charge evidence, vide order dated 13.07.2016, charge was framed against accused Bashir Ahmed Mir for the offence U/s 49 and 49B (1) of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, punishable u/s 51 of the Act to Wild Life (CBI) Vs. Bashir Ahmed Mir CC No.59/2016 2 which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. In order to substantiate the allegations, the prosecution examined 14 witnesses.
6. CW-1 Sh. C.P. Sharma is the Laboratory Technician from wild life institute of India. He stated that on 20.05.2003, he received the case property in sealed condition and examined the same and prepared the report Ex. CW 1/B which was sent under the signature of Director Sh. S.Singsth, Wild Life Institute of India. He identified the case property as being examined by him. During cross examination he stated that the case property was examined by him and not by Director Wild Life Institute of India. He was put several questions with respect to tension and elasticity of the wool used in Pasmina and Tibatan antelope. He denied suggestion that he had not enter any test on the shawls and gave his report in technical manner at the instance of CBI. He also denied suggestion that he has no knowledge of nature of shawls. During post charge evidence he stated that he received a letter Ex. CW 1/A by hand. He categorically stated that he alone examined the case property and prepared the report. He further stated the case property can be identified on the basis of marking made by him on behalf of Wild life Institute of India. During re-examination by Ld. PP he stated by the report was signed by Director who was authorised to submit the same as per the protocol and it was not mandatory to be signed by the examiner. During further cross examination he denied that he cannot prove the report Wild Life (CBI) Vs. Bashir Ahmed Mir CC No.59/2016 3 CW-1/B.
7. CW-13: Dr. S.P. Garg, is another official from Wild Life institute of India. He stated that on 21.05.2003 letter Ex. CW 1/A was received in his office which is Mark to C.P. Sharma for examination. He further stated that the examination was done by C.P. Sharma and the report was sent through Director Wild Life institute of India. In his cross examination, he stated that he do not remember exact date and month when case property was examined. He stated that he was working in a capacity of supervision and had not examined the case property himself. He admitted that he himself does not receive the letter Ex. CW 1/A or prepared the report Ex. CW 1/B himself.
8. PW-2: Surender kumar Panchal is an official of CBI.
He stated that on 20.05.2003, he received the case property from Incharge Malkhana and taken the same to Wild Life Institute of India alongwith Ct. Ram Chander. He also stated that he received the letter with his attested signature from the then SP Sh. J.P. Verma. He further stated that he handed over the letter and case property to Sh. C.P. Sharma in intact condition who made endorsement on the letter regarding receiving the case property and also on the copy of specimen of seal. He proved the specimen seal as Ex. PW 2/A. He further confirmed that the case property remained in infact condition and not tempered with till it remain in his custody. During cross examination in post charge evidence, he categorically stated that he received the case property Wild Life (CBI) Vs. Bashir Ahmed Mir CC No.59/2016 4 from Incharge Malkhana in sealed condition. He further stated that he had taken 3 sealed packets at Wild Life Institute of India alongwith letter dt. 20.05.2003.
9. CW3: Rohtash Singh Jajoria is an independent witness being official of Union Bank of India New Delhi. He stated that on 12.05.2003, he was directed by then Chief Manager Sh. P.NM. Mathur to report S.P. CBI EOU-V on 13.05.2003 at 08.00 am. He further stated that on 13.05.2003 at CBI office he met DCP N.S. Sahni, Inspector A.K. Basi and Sh. Jitender Singh who is official from Union Bank of India. He stated the manner in which raiding party was briefed by A.K. Basi about the secret information and the pre departure search conducted upon the members of the raiding party and the vehicle used by the party. He further stated that at about 09.00 they reached the premises where accused Bashir Ahmed Mir and another person Ram Lal Anand were found. This witness identified the accused in the court. He stated the manner in which the case property were recovered and stated that total 45 shawls and two kurta were recovered apart from cash of Rs. 1,38,000/- and other documents. He stated the manner in which the case property was seized and sealed. He also stated about preparation of recovery memo Ex. CW 3/A ( running into 12 pages ) and preparation of rough site plan Ex. Cw 3/B, handing over of keys Ex. CW 3/C, handing over of seal Ex. CW 3/D, personal search cum arrest memo Ex. CW 1/E, specimen seal Ex. CW 3/F and seizure of visiting card of Kashmir Arts and another visiting card Ex. CW 3/G and 3/H in Wild Life (CBI) Vs. Bashir Ahmed Mir CC No.59/2016 5 his presence. He also stated the seizure of bill of Himalaya Art Emporium vide recovery memo Ex. CW 3/I & 3/J and 3/K apart from seizure of cash memo Ex. CW 3/L and 3/M. CW-3 also brought the seal which was handed over to him at the time of recovery and proved the same Ex. P48. He also identified the case property which are Ex. P-1 to P-47 i.e. 45 shawls and 2 kurtas. During cross examination he admitted that no written directions were given to him on his appearance in CBI office. He failed to state the block name at CBI office or whether any gate pass was issued to him. He stated that Mr. Sahni told him the secret information and the raid. He stated that no documents were prepared in the CBI office in his presence. He failed to state what was recovered in the personal search of members of raiding party. He failed to state whether any memo was prepared for the personal search of raiding party or the vehicle. He denied the suggestion that he had not visited the CBI office in the morning of 13.05.2003. he admitted that the premises is situated in densily populated area and IO did not tell anybody from neighbourhood to join the proceedings. He stated that all shawl were not kept at one place, some were lying in drawing room and some were lying in adjacent room. He failed to state that how many shawls were recovered from drawing room or from the adjacent room. He stated that Ram Lal Anand was not interrogated in his presence and he do not know where said Ram Lal was residing. He failed to state the whether his statement or statement of Ram Lal Anand was recorded at the spot. He stated that recovery memo of currency note were prepared Wild Life (CBI) Vs. Bashir Ahmed Mir CC No.59/2016 6 but failed to state whether any seal is put on the currency notes. He denied suggestion that no separate recovery memo was prepared for currency notes. He failed to recall the exact descriptions of property papers but stated that the bill book and cash memo book were signed by Mr. Basi, Mr. Jitender Singh and him. He denied the suggestion that he had signed on the asking of the CBI office and Ex.CW3/G and 3/H were not recovered from the accused. He denied the suggestion that accused was not arrested in his presence or no handing over memo was prepared and he made wrong statement in respect to handing over and taking over the seal. He denied the suggestion that site plan and no recovery memo were prepared in his presence. He denied that he has no knowledge about Ex. CW 3/C and he produced the seal in the court at the instance of CBI as same was given to him while coming to the court. He denied the suggestion that he was not the member of the raiding party and no recovery proceeding took him in his presence. During further cross examination and post charge evidence he admitted that no proof has been filed on record to show that he was working in Union Bank of India. He stated that due to lapse of time. He is not recollecting the facts completely and therefore, many of the questions were not answered by him with the remarks that 'he do not know' or 'he do not remember'. He denied the suggestion that accused was falsely implicated or nothing was recovered from the possession of the accused.
10. CW-4: HC Rajesh Kumar, he stated that on 05.09.03, Wild Life (CBI) Vs. Bashir Ahmed Mir CC No.59/2016 7 he went to WII Dehradun to collect expert opinoin of case No. 4/03 and after collecting the same in sealed cover by showing authorization letter, he submitted the same to SO,EOU-V. He proved the letter dt. 05.09.03 as Ex. CW 4/A. During cross examination he stated he met C.P Sharma and collected the opinion. He denied the suggestion that he neither gone to Wild Life Institute of India Dehradun and not collected the opinion. During further cross examination in post charge evidence he admitted that he had not placed on record any ticket of Railway/ Bus to show that he had gone to Dehradun. He denied the suggestion that he did not visit the Dehradun. He stated that he collected the expert opinion and submitted the same to concerned SP.
11. CW-5 Inspector A.K. Basi who was part of the raiding party. He stated that on 12.05.2003, he received information about indulging in illicit trafficking of shahtoosh shawls by accused from his residential premises. He proved the secret information report (SIR) as Ex. CW 5/A. He stated that written request was made to General Manager Union Bank of India by DSP N.C. Sahni for deputing officers in seizure proceedings on 13.05.2003 at 0800 hours. He proved the noting on the SIR and the requisition as Ex. CW 5/B and Ex. CW 5/C. He stated the manner in which the raid was conducted on 13.05.2003 and case property was recovered. During cross examination he stated that there might be DD entry in the office of CBI or departure for the purpose of raid. He stated that team was led by him under the supervision of N.C. Sahni. He admitted that no DD entry Wild Life (CBI) Vs. Bashir Ahmed Mir CC No.59/2016 8 is on judicial file as on date but denied the suggestion that such DD entry was ever made. He stated and Ram Lal Anand was inquired who stated that he had come to collect cusion or cover from the accused. He admitted that neither he had made any inquiry from Ram Lal Anand whether he was in any business association with accused nor conducted any investigation to verify the same. He stated that movement register is maintained in the office of SP, EOU-V by Crime Section. He admitted that no movement register is mentioned in Ex. CW 5/B. He admitted that secret information was not verified prior to conducting the raid but denied the suggestion that no such information was received by him and CW-5/B is a fabricated document. He stated that site plan was prepared by Inspector A.K. Srivastava and CW- 3/E was written by him. He denied the suggestion that Ex. CW 3/F was prepared subsequently while sitting in the CBI office. He admitted that CW 3/D does not bear SIR number, sample seal or signatures of any witnesses. He denied the suggestion that Ex. CW 3/A and Ex.CW-3/E are fabricated documents and nothing was recovered from the possession of the accused. He admitted that no drawing room shown in the site plan Ex. CW 3/B but stated that Ex. CW 3/B is a rough site plan. He admitted that name / signature of the local people were not mentioned in the recovery memo. On Ex. CW 3/A he identified the signature of Ram Lal Anand at point Z1. He admitted that no ID proof of Ram Lal Anand was taken and he believed his identity as told by him. He stated that he do not recorded any members of raiding party. He denied suggestion that all paper work were not done at the Wild Life (CBI) Vs. Bashir Ahmed Mir CC No.59/2016 9 spot and no shahtoosh shawl was recovered from the possession of the accused.
12. CW-6: Retired Additional SP Sh. H.S. Chopra is the complainant. He stated that in September 2003, inspector Vijay Kumar Shukla handed over the statement of witnesses, documents and case property to him. He further stated that after going through the record and discussion with IO he filed the present case which is Ex. CW 6/A. During cross examination he admitted that notification dt. 07.04.2000 is photocopy. He also admitted that there is no authority letter on record which can show that he was authorized to file the present complaint. He denied the suggestion that he had filed the false and fabricated complaint and not verified the documents.
13. CW-7 Sh. Ashok Kapoor, is the Chief Manager of J & K N Bank in the year 2003. he stated that on 03.09.2003, he issued a letter Ex. CW 7/A at the request of CBI pertaining to account no. 0323CD3803 which was closed on 31.07.2003 belonging to M/s Himalaylan Art Emporium (Bashir Ahmed). He also proved the current account opening form as Ex. CW 7/B and form No. 60 as Ex. CW 7/C. He stated that he had furnished the bank statement of the account for the period 01.06.2002 to 03.09.2003 as Ex. CW 7/E. During cross examination by Ld. APP he admitted that the documents enclosed with his letter dt. 03.09.2003 bear signature of Narender Pal Singh but due to laspe of time, he could not identify his signature. During cross-examination. During Wild Life (CBI) Vs. Bashir Ahmed Mir CC No.59/2016 10 cross-examination he failed to state that whether he met any CBI officer but stated that he do not remember whether he came across any dubious transaction regarding the said account. He denied the suggestion that he had not sent the letter dt. 03.09.2003 or any enclosures with the said letter.
14. PW-9 M.C. Sahni, he was working as additional SP in May 2003 stated about the secret information and consequent raid upon the premises of the accused. He stated that the manner in which the raiding team was found and raid was conducted in which the case property was seized and other proceedings carried out. He identified the accused as well as the case property. During cross examination in post charge evidence he stated that he identified the shahtoosh shawl on the basis of the experience he is conducting large number of cases in which shahtoosh shawls were recovered. He further stated that he identified the shawl on the basis of guard hairs which when pulled out brakes down and are normally in curely shape. He admitted that he himself not release the secret information in writing. He admitted that accused and Ram Lal Anand are not previously known to him. He denied the suggestion that he deposing falsely.
15. PW-10: Smt. Sudesh Bhatia, the co-owner of premises from where the case property was recovered . She stated that property was sold to her by one kashmiri resident on the basis of GPA executed by her husband Sh. G.S. Bhatia. She also admitted the photocopy of agreement to Wild Life (CBI) Vs. Bashir Ahmed Mir CC No.59/2016 11 sell dt. 11.03.199 between her and the accused. During cross-examination she stated that she cannot identify the person to whom the property was sold and since she is only 10th pass she cannot read English language. He denied the suggestion that she is deposing falsely about t he selling the property to the accused. He denied the suggestion that the documents were not signed by her or her husband.
16. PW-11 Sh. Vijay Kumar Shukla, DSP CBI. He stated that after registration of the case on 13.05.2003., the investigation was entrusted to him by the then SP J.P. Verma. He further stated that during course of examination, he examined the relevant witnesses, seized relevant documents from various offices,forwarded the seized shawls and kurta to WII Dehradun for expert opinion and received the same. He further stated that the investigation established that raid was conducted at the residential premises of the accused from where contraband shawls and kurta were recovered apart uncounted cash of Rs. 1,38,000/-. he further stated that since sufficient oral as well as documentory including expert opinion has come, a complaint was filed through Sh. H.S. Chopra, the then Additional SP who was competent to file such complaint u/s 51 of Wild Life Protection Act. He identified the signature of J.P. Verma on Ex. Cw 5/G and on Ex. CW 1/A. He also identified documents Ex. CW7/1 to CW 7/E received from J & K Bank. He also proved the notification dt. 07.04.2000 whereby officers of the rank of deputy Superintendent of Police CBI are authorized to file the complaint under Wild Life Protection Act. He also proved Wild Life (CBI) Vs. Bashir Ahmed Mir CC No.59/2016 12 notification dt. 24.01.96 authorizing CBI to investigate offences punishable u/s 51 of Wild Life Protection Act which is Ex. PW 11/D. He stated that he recorded statement of members of raiding party which are Ex. PW 11/J to 11/U. He identified the accused as well as the case property. During the cross-examination he admitted the he was not the member of the raiding party. He admitted about the notification dt. 21.01.2003 and stated that the said notification in his knowledge which is Ex. Mark D1. He denied the suggestion that the said notification was in his knowledge on 13.05.2003 and despite that he did not conducted any investigation and not examined as a witness and not seized any documents. During further examination in post charge evidence he has stated that his knowledge and proceedings is based on the documents prepared by the raiding party and he was not present at the time of raid. He stated that during PC remand he verified that premises in question was in explosive possession of the accused and same was confirmed from the seller as well as neighbours. He admitted the document Mark X1 does not bear his signature. He denied the suggestion that the documents executed by him are forged and fabricated. He admitted that he is not an expert. He identified the shahtoosh shawls.
17. PW-12: Jitender Singh is an another independent witness from Union Bank of India. He also stated that he was asked by P.M. Mathur Chief Manager to report CBI office on 13.05.2003. he proved the office order in this regard as Ex. CW 5/C. He stated the manner in which he was brief Wild Life (CBI) Vs. Bashir Ahmed Mir CC No.59/2016 13 about the raid, the formation of the raiding party and covering the seizure of the case property. During cross- examination he admitted that he cannot distinguish between shahtoosh shawl and normal shawl. He admitted that Ex. CW 5/C is not our office order. He was put various questions with respect to the time place and manner of raid which he answered as per the case of the prosecution. He admitted that spot is residential area having high density.
18. CW-14: Ram Kanwar was the Malkhana Incharge in May 2003. He stated that on 13.05.2003 at about 07.30 to 07.45 pm, he received three sealed packet in intact sealed condition and five marking cloth P1 to P5 regarding 17 documents mentioned in recovery memo and cash of Rs. 1,38,000/- which were kept in safe custody by him after making necessary entreis in the malkhana register. He also stated that t ill 20.05.2013 the case property was under his custody under and same were not tempered with. He further stated that on 20.05.2003 he handed over three sealed packet s Mark A B C to H.C. Surender Kumar Panchal. After making necessary entries in the register he proved the said entry as Ex. PW 17/A . During cross-examination he stated that he has been brought to the court in official vehicle on his request due to his illness. He stated that he do not recall how currency notes were deposited and what happen to them after his retirement. However, he pointed out that the details of currency notes are mentioned at point B on Ex. PW 14/A. Wild Life (CBI) Vs. Bashir Ahmed Mir CC No.59/2016 14
19. After completion of post charge evidence, statement of the accused was recorded separately U/s 313 Cr.P.C. wherein accused denied all the evidences against him and stated that he has been falsely implicated.
20. I have heard Ld. Counsel for both the parties. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced on behalf of both the parties and have gone through the relevant records and also the relevant provisions of the Act.
21. The relevant provisions of section 49 and 49B(1) are reproduced for ready reference:
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.
49B. Prohibition of dealings in trophies, animal articles, etc., derived from scheduled animals. - (1) Subject to the other provisions of this section, on and after the specified date, no person shall, -
(a) commence or carry on the business as -
(i)a manufacturer of, or dealer in scheduled animal articles; or [ia)a dealer in ivory imported into India or articles made therefrom or a manufacturer of such articles; or]
(ii)a taxidermist with respect to any scheduled animals or any parts of such animals; or
(iii) a dealer in trophy or uncured trophy derived from any scheduled animal; or Wild Life (CBI) Vs. Bashir Ahmed Mir CC No.59/2016 15
(iv) a dealer in any captive animals being scheduled animals; or
(v) a dealer in meat derived from any scheduled animal; or
(b) cook or serve meat derived from any scheduled animal in any eating-house.
22. Ld. Defence Counsels for the accused have vehemently argued that story of prosecution is doubtful and accused has been falsely implicated in the present case. He argued that the complainant failed to prove any nexus of accused with the shawls or with the premises. It is further argued that Ex. CW 1/B is sent by Director of WII but he had not examined the case property. Therefore, no evidentory value can be attached to the report. It is further submitted that CW-1 is not an competent witness. He also pointed out that no neighbours were joined in the raid and testimony of CW-3 cannot be read as he did not remember anything. He prayed for accquittal.
23. On the other hand, Ld. PP for the state has argued that all the complainant witnesses have fully supported the case of the prosecution and complainant proved its case beyond reasonable doubts. It is further argued that the presumption under Section 57 of Wild Life Protection Act has not been rebutted by the accused.
24. Whether the shawls seized are shahtoosh shawls: In view of testimony of CW1 and CW13, who are the experts from Wild Life Institute of India coupled with the documents including Ex. CW-1/A which is the request for Wild Life (CBI) Vs. Bashir Ahmed Mir CC No.59/2016 16 forensic examination and Ex. CW-1/B which is the report of Wild Life Institute of India, it is conclusively established that the forty five shawls and two kurtas contained the guard hair of Tibetan Antelope, Pantholops hodgsonil which is protected under Schedule-I of the Act. The arguments of the Ld. Counsel that the author of report Sh. S.Singisit was not examined by the prosecution therefore, no credence could be given to report in Ex. CW 1/B is humbly rejected as CW-1 has sufficiently explained that not only he alone examined the case property but also prepared the report Ex. CW 1/B which was signed by Director of the Institute as per the establish protocol of the institute. No suggestion has been put to CW-1 and CW-13 that there was no procedure for signing of the report by the Director. The report specifically mentions that the analysis was carried out by Sh. C.P. Sharma, Foensic Laboratory Technician under the supervision of Dr. S.P. Goyal, Nodal Officer, Wildlife foensic cell and based on th ehair characteristics and physical examination and comparing hair characteristic of the woolen shawls and kurtas with reference samples.
25. Despite detailed cross-examination of the expert witness, the defence could not show any lacuna in the report of the expert witness. No independent evidence has been led by the defence to disprove the said fact.
26. Whether the premises in question was in physical possession of the accused. All the members of the raiding party has stated that when they reached the spot, accused Wild Life (CBI) Vs. Bashir Ahmed Mir CC No.59/2016 17 was found present in the house. PW-10 has conclusively shown that premises in question was sold to the accused. The bank record of accused as well as the details of the mobile connection in name of accused are all at the address in question. Accused has no where denied that the premises does not belong to him. Form-60 also mentioned the name of the accused and the address in question. The visiting cards Himalaya Art Emporium also bears the same address. Hence, it is proved that accused was in phyisical possession of the premises in question from where they contraband shawls and kurtas were recovered. The presence of accused has also not been denied at the time of raid and seizure of the shawls. No evidence has been led to show that accused was not in constructive possession of the premises and shawls.
27. The recovery was effected in the presence of independent witnesses. CW-3 & CW-12 are independent witnesses who joined the raiding party on the directions issued by their department. Both the witnesses were thoroughly cross-examined by the defence. Both the witnesses have stated the manner in which the raid was conducted and shawls were seized. They have denied all the suggestions put to them pointing towards the innocence of accused. The defence has not been able to shake their testimony. Both stated that the shawls and kurtas were recovered from the house of accused. Accused himself has not denied the raid itself.
Wild Life (CBI) Vs. Bashir Ahmed Mir CC No.59/2016 18
28. At this stage it would be relevant to go through section 57 of the Act which says:
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 captive animal, animal article, meat, (trophy, uncured trophy, specified plant, or part of derivative thereof} 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 captive animal, animal article, meat (trophy, uncured trophy, specified plant, or part of derivative thereof}.
29. Hence, as per section 57 of the Act, prosecution has to prove that accused was found in possession/custody or control of contraband wild life article and until the contrary is proved, which is to be proved by the accused, custody of such person will be treated to be unlawful custody. The accused has not lead any evidence to rebut the presumption of Section 57 of the Act. From the cross examination of prosecution witnesses, accused has failed to bring anything on record to rebut the said presumption. Complainant has also complied with the Section 50(4) of the Act as the seized shawls were produced before the Court on 14.05.2003.
Wild Life (CBI) Vs. Bashir Ahmed Mir CC No.59/2016 19
30. It is also pertinent to mention here that during the course of cross examination of the witnesses, Ld. Defence Counsel did not give any suggestion as to why the witnesses are deposing against the accused. Even otherwise, it is not the case of accused that witnesses were inimical towards the accused. It is also to be kept in mind that the case property is not easily available in the market. Witnesses have totally supported the case of the prosecution regarding the recovery of shahtoosh shawls as well as their trade and also they all are corroborating each other on all material aspects and there is no inconsistency contradictions in their statement. Their statements on record are found to be cogent, inspire the confidence of the Court and there is no reason to disbelieve the same. I do not find any reason that why complainant would falsely implicate the accused.
31. In view of the aforesaid discussions, it is held that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused Bashir Ahmed Mir. From the record it is clear from the quantity of recovered shawls that accused Bashir Ahmed Mir was indulged in the business of Shahtoosh shawls without any permit or licence. The said shawls were made of/derived from Tibetan Antelope (Pantholops hodgsonii) which are specified in Schedule-I of the Act and thus accused Bashir Ahmed Mir has contravened the provisions of section 49 and 49B(1) of the Act which is punishable u/s 51 of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. Accordingly, accused Bashir Ahmed Mir is held guilty and convicted for the offence punishable U/s 51 of the Act for the Wild Life (CBI) Vs. Bashir Ahmed Mir CC No.59/2016 20 contravention of sections 49 and 49B(1) of Wild Life (Protection) Act. Copy of the judgment be supplied free of cost to the convict.
Digitally signed PAWAN by PAWAN
Announced in open SINGH SINGH RAJAWAT
Date: 2019.02.04
Court on 1st February, 2019 RAJAWAT 12:51:41 +0530
(PAWAN SINGH RAJAWAT)
ACMM (Special Acts):CENTRAL
TIS HAZARI COURTS:DELHI
Wild Life (CBI) Vs. Bashir Ahmed Mir CC No.59/2016 21