THE UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI LAW ACADEMY

ENVIRONMENTAL
LAW
HUNTING OF ANIMALS AND
AMENDMENT OF 2002

SUBMITTED TO:

PROF. JIGNA JINANDRA

UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI LAW ACADEMY

SUBMITTED BY:

NAME: MOKSHA JAIN

ROLL NO: 15

TY.BBA-LLB (HONS)
 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

1|Page
THE UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI LAW ACADEMY
 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

INDEX
SR.NO TOPIC PAGE NO.
1) INTRODUCTION 2
2) PROHIBITION OF
HUNTING 5
3) THE NEED FOR
PROHIBITION 6
4) HUNTING OF WILD
ANIMALS TO BE
PERMITTED IN 7
CERTAIN CASES:
5) GRANT OF A PERMIT
OF HUNTING FOR 8
SPECIAL PURPOSES:
6) PUNISHMENT 9
7) PROCEDURE FOR
TRIAL FOR OFFENCE
OF HUNTING WILD 12
ANIMALS:
8) INDIAN WILDLIFE
(PROTECTION) ACT,
AMENDMENT OF 16
2002
9) CONCLUSION 18

2|Page
THE UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI LAW ACADEMY
 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

HUNTING OF ANIMALS:
 INTRODUCTION:
Hunting means some type of activity that involves mostly 3 processes i.e. Seeking, Pursuing
and killing wild animals for their purpose of trading, commercialization, and earning a huge
amount of profit from their body and its parts.1

Regulations distinguish lawful hunting from poaching, which involves the illegal killing,
trapping or capture of the hunted species. The species that are hunted are referred to as game
or prey and are usually mammals and birds. Economists classify hunting as part of primary
production - alongside forestry, agriculture and fishing.2

Hunting by humans arose in Homo erectus or earlier, in the order of millions of years ago.
Hunting has become deeply embedded in human culture.

Hunting can be a means of pest control. Hunting advocates state that hunting can be a
necessary component of modern wildlife management, for example, to help maintain a
population of healthy animals within an environment's ecological carrying capacity when
natural checks such as predators are absent or very rare. However, excessive hunting has also
heavily contributed to the endangerment, extirpation and extinction of many animals.3

The pursuit, capture and release, or capture for food of fish is called fishing, which is not
commonly categorised as a form of hunting. It is also not considered hunting to pursue
animals without intent to kill them, as in wildlife photography, bird watching, or scientific-
research activities which involve tranquilizing or tagging of animals or birds. The practice of
foraging or gathering materials from plants and mushrooms is also considered separate from
hunting.

Skilful tracking and acquisition of an elusive target has caused the word hunt to be used in
the vernacular as a metaphor, as in treasure hunting, "bargain hunting", and even "hunting
down" corruption and waste.4

1
Oxford Dictionary of English. Stevenson, Angus (3 ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2010. p. 856
2
Williams, Ted. "Wanted: More Hunters," Audubon magazine, March 2002,
3
Harper, Craig A. "Quality Deer Management Guidelines for Implementation" (PDF). Agricultural Extension
Service, The University of Tennessee. Archived from the original
4
"Why Sport Hunting Is Cruel and Unnecessary". PETA. 15 December 2003.
3|Page
THE UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI LAW ACADEMY
 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

Some animal rights activists regard hunting as cruel, unnecessary, and unethical.5

Concept of hunting emerged 3 million years ago and it is existing till now across the globe.
Earlier during the king’s rule hunting was considered as a privilege of nobility and noble
family and they used to do hunting in their free time as a source of enjoyment for them.6

Overhunting has been identified as one of the major threats to wildlife in many parts of the
world (Datta et al. 2008; Aiyadurai 2011; Harrison 2011; Kamins et al. 2011; Nasi et al.
2011; Bhupathy et al. 2013), thus regulating hunting would be important for the conservation
of wildlife and biodiversity. In order to evolve sustainable hunting regulations it is important
to have baseline data on relevant socio-economic drivers and cultural practices, and on the
species hunted, their population structures and harvest levels.

If we look at the definition of hunting according to the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972
‘Hunting’ includes:

Capturing, killing, poisoning, snaring and trapping of any wild animal and every attempt to
do so.

Driving any wild animal for any of the purposes specified i.e. Trading, commercializing.

Destroying or taking any parts of the animal or any species.

But soon after the French revolution, hunting was made illegal which caused damage to the
ecosystem of the forest and also led to endangered species. Earlier hunting was considered as
a spare time activity and sign of nobility but now the government has made many laws
related to prohibition of hunting which regulate the practice.

As said “hunting is a leisure activity during the time of emperors but in the latter period,
hunting was not considered as a leisure or spare time activity, rather it was considered as a
Necessity.” The reason behind considering hunting as a necessity in the early period is that
during the early period, People were nomadic and there was no development of other
societies except nomadic society. At the beginning they ate the animals which get dead or
deceased but with the passing of time they started to look for fresh meat and healthy animals
and started hunting by using their man made tools made up of stones. Some of the tools

5
"Hunting". Animal Ethics.
6
Neves-Garca, Katja (2007). "Hunting". In Robbins, Paul (ed.). Encyclopedia of Environment and Society. 3.
Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications. pp. 894–896
4|Page
THE UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI LAW ACADEMY
 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

which were majorly used by the hunters in early and middle age were spear, bow and quiver.
7

In the case, State of Bihar vs. Murad Ali Khan, 1989,

it was held that hunting is an offence under section 51(1) of the Wildlife Protection Act and
decided that hunting of wild animals is to be permitted in certain cases and gave an example
of self defence that in order to protect ourselves from wild animals in any circumstances and
killing or giving any harm to that animal will not fall under the provision of Wildlife
Protection Act.8

In the case, Nabin Chandra Gogoi vs. State, 1958 ,

The magistrate convicted the man under section 429 of Indian Penal Code and according to
the provision of the Wild Birds and Animals Protection Act, 1912. But, Petitioner filed an
appeal against this decision and Session Judge upheld the Magistrate decision and contended
that the conviction under Section 429 of IPC was not valid as section 429 of IPC says that
killing of domestic animal will make the petitioner liable under the provision and killing of
rhinoceros is in no way killing of a domestic animal and hence conviction under provision of
Section 429 of IPC is invalid.9

7
Collin, P. H. (Peter Hodgson) (2009). Dictionary of Environment and Ecology: Over 7,000 terms clearly defined.
Bloomsbury Reference (5 ed.). London: Bloomsbury. p. 108.
8
1989 AIR, 1 1988 SCR Supl. (3) 455
9
1961 CriLJ 226
5|Page
THE UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI LAW ACADEMY
 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

 PROHIBITION OF HUNTING:

Hunting has spread across the globe and to control that, prohibition of hunting is necessary.
The government has also brought laws to regulate the activities of hunting and regulate or
ban the trading of animals and its parts.

According to Section 9 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972,

Prohibition of hunting has been explained.

“No person shall hunt any wild animal as specified in schedules, I, II, III and IV except as
provided under section 11 and section 12.” 10

Post-Independence hunting was banned by the government under the Wildlife (Protection)
Act, 1972, except for some purposes which is defined in section 11 and section 12 of Wildlife
(Protection) Act, 1972.

If we look at what impact laid down by the prohibition of hunting then according to a study,
it is found that the prohibition of wildlife hunting introduced by the government of Botswana
lead to the reduction of earning and livelihood of the rural people and due to which they
suffered a lot.

In the case, WATERS V. MEAKIN,

The respondent had been acquitted of causing unnecessary suffering to rabbits (contrary to
the Protection of Animals Act 1911, s. 1(1)) by releasing them into a fenced enclosure from
which they had no reasonable chance of escape, before setting dogs after them. Dismissing
the prosecutor's appeal, the Divisional Court held that the respondent's conduct fell within the
exception provided for "hunting or coursing" by sub-s. (3) (b) of s. 1of the 1911 Act. From
the moment that the captive animal is liberated to be hunted or coursed, it falls outwith the
protection of the 1911 Act, irrespective of whether the hunting or coursing is humane or
sportsmanlike.11

10
Wildlife protection act,1972
11
[1916] 2 KB 111
6|Page
THE UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI LAW ACADEMY
 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

 THE NEED FOR PROHIBITION:

The need for a prohibition title itself shows why hunting needs to be prohibited. It is because
the term ‘need’ means it should be completed or to be done in any circumstances no matter
whatever the situation would be.

Hunting means killing wild animals for the purpose of earning large amounts of money or for
the purpose of self-fulfilment and is totally wrong in both aspects legally as well as morally.
12

Hunting should be prohibited because of the continuous practice of killing from the very
early period due to which the balance of the ecosystem gets disturbed and it affects human
and animal life. Hunting leads to the extinction of various species and which gradually paves
way to the danger to biodiversity.

Hunting should be banned because many tribes realize wild fauna which are alive have
greater value in biodiversity than the dead ones and also it maintains the ecological balance
and if in this condition hunting will not be prohibited then it will be hurting many tribal
groups which believe in living fauna in the biodiversity. 13

The prohibition of hunting for all these benefits is necessary and for implementation of this
rule of not hunting any animal, Government brings many acts for the regulation of hunting
and prohibition of hunting in India. Some of the Acts which were introduced for the
implementation of the rule of ban of hunting and regulation of prohibition of hunting.

i. Indian wildlife protection Act, 1972.

ii. The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960.

iii. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 428 and Section 429).

12
Harper, Douglas. "Hunt". Online Etymology Dictionary.
13
Sinha, Samir (2010). Handbook on wildlife law enforcement in India (PDF). TRAFFIC India, WWF-India. New
Delhi: Natraj Publishers. p. 117.
7|Page
THE UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI LAW ACADEMY
 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

 HUNTING OF WILD ANIMALS TO BE PERMITTED IN CERTAIN

CASES:

Hunting of wild animals is surely an illegal act and any person performing it will be booked
under the provisions of law as per different act as mentioned above. If we look at the
provisions and sections of Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 then Section 11 of the same act
deals with the certain cases where hunting of wild animals is permitted. Section 11 of
Wildlife (Protection) Act says that, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for
the time being in force and subject to the provision of Chapter IV.

If the Chief Wildlife Warden is satisfied that any wild animal specified in schedule (I) which
is dangerous to human life or diseased as to be beyond recovery, by order in writing and
stating the reasons therefor, permit any person to hunt such animal.

If the Chief Wildlife Warden or the authorized officer is satisfied that the wild animal
mentioned in schedule (II) is dangerous to human life or to any property, by order in writing
and stating the reasons therefor, permit any person to hunt any such animal.

The killing or harming of any wild animal in self-defence of oneself or defence of anyone
shall not be booked or constitute an offence under Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.14

These are the exceptions provided in Section 11 of Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 in which
any person will be permitted for hunting a wild animal.

The whole act of killing an animal should be as per the provision mentioned and if it is not
according to the provisions mentioned then that person will be booked under the said
provisions and shall be punished.15

14
the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972
15
Chhokar, Kiran Banga; Pandya, Mamata; Raghunathan, Meena (2004). Understanding Environment. New
Delhi: SAGE Publications India. p. 59.
8|Page
THE UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI LAW ACADEMY
 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

 GRANT OF A PERMIT OF HUNTING FOR SPECIAL PURPOSES:

Grant of permit hunting for special purposes simply means that any person can practice
hunting without being held liable according to the provisions of law which regulate the
hunting of Animals only in special circumstances or for special purposes.

According to the Section 12 of Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, notwithstanding anything

contained elsewhere in the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, it is lawful for the warden to
grant a permit, by an order in writing stating the reasons therefor, to any person, on payment
of fees as prescribed, which shall entitle the holder of such permit to hunt subject to such
conditions as may be specified, for the purpose of:

i. Education.
ii. Scientific research.
iii. Scientific Management.

After analyzing the Section 12 of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 we come to know that
there is grant of permit of hunting for some specific purposes and these all specific purposes
are so much essential for any country to develop it and the three purposes are mentioned
above.

Education, which is considered as the most important element of the society. Education is
necessary for all and for the work of research and practical study, there is a need for animal
body parts and due to which hunting is permitted for this area.16

Scientific research is something which is required to develop in this field to compete at global
level and never be dependent on other countries for scientific research on something or
particular things. And, the last one is Scientific management. Before explaining why it is
necessary, first one should understand what scientific management is. ‘Scientific
Management’ is a management that analyzes and smoothens workflows in any place or
organization. Scientific management is considered an element and considered as an exception
for which hunting is permitted so that it ensures a smooth workflow, brings efficiency,
effectiveness and productivity.17

16
Archana, Ravi (20 December 2016). "Naturalist Peter Smetacek calls for dog culling". Deccan Chronicle
17
"THE INDIAN WILDLIFE (PROTECTION) ACT, 1972". envfor.nic.in.
9|Page
THE UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI LAW ACADEMY
 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

 PUNISHMENT

India is not new to the phenomenon called ‘zoosadism’ – inflicting cruelty on animals for
personal amusement. A cat being run over by a car or a dog being attacked by a bunch of
urchins are some of the sights that urban India witnesses quite often . However, the cruelty
against animals stretches far beyond these activities. Army personnel cooking chinkara meat
and superstars of Indian film industry poaching endangered deers and owning tusks are some
of the news stories that frequently do the rounds.

It has been argued by animal rights activists that killing animals for sport is unethical, cruel,
and unnecessary. They note the suffering and cruelty inflicted on animals hunted for sport:
"Many animals endure prolonged, painful deaths when they are injured but not killed by
hunters [...] Hunting disrupts migration and hibernation patterns and destroys
families."Animal rights activists also comment that hunting is not needed to maintain an
ecological balance, and that "nature takes care of its own".They say that hunting can be
combated on public lands by "spread[ing] deer repellent or human hair (from barber shops)
near hunting areas". Animal rights activists also argue that hunting is speciesist; Whether
hunters try to justify their killing by citing human deaths caused by wild animals, by making
conservationist claims, by claiming that it’s acceptable to hunt as long as the animals' bodies
are eaten, or simply because of the pleasure it brings them, the fact remains that hunting is
morally unacceptable if we consider the interests of nonhuman animals. Hunted animals
endure fear and pain, and then are deprived of their lives. Understanding the injustices of
speciesism and the interests of nonhuman animals makes it clear that human pleasure cannot
justify nonhuman animals' pain.18

The laws laid down by Indian government for the punishment of hunting of animals are as
follows;

 INDIAN WILDLIFE PROTECTION ACT,1972

According to the Wildlife Protection Act of 1972, enacted for the protection of wild animals,
birds and plants, the act of hunting constitutes “capturing, killing, poisoning, snaring, or
trapping any wild animal”. In fact, injuring, damaging or stealing body part of any animal
also constitutes hunting. For wild birds and reptiles, “disturbing or damaging the eggs or

18
Chardonnet, P; Clers, B; Fischer, J; Gerhold, R; Jori, F; Lamarque, F (2002). "The Value of Wildlife" (PDF). Rev.
Sci. Tech. Off. Int. Epiz.
10 | P a g e
THE UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI LAW ACADEMY
 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

nests” is tantamount to hunting. The amendment to the Act was enforced in January 2003 and
punishment for offences was made more stringent.

A first-time offender, who hunts animals or alters the boundaries of any reserved forested
area, is liable for a minimum fine of Rs. 10,000 and at least three years of rigorous
imprisonment. For a repeat offence, the term of imprisonment may extend to seven years with
a minimum fine of Rs. 25,000. With the insertion of a new section, 51 A, the process of
securing a bail has become more difficult. According to this amendment, the accused won’t
get a bail unless the court finds “reasonable grounds” to believe that the individual is not
guilty.19

 THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS (PCA) ACT, 1960

The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act of 1960 was enacted with an objective of
preventing infliction of unnecessary pain on animals. The Section 11 clearly elucidates that
causing harm to any animal during transportation is a cognizable offence. Tying up cattle in
overcrowded vehicles is illegal, according to this Act. In fact, injecting anything injurious and
serving any poisonous food is also illegal. Any such violation of Section 11 invites a penalty
of Rs. 100 and/or up to three months of imprisonment.20

 INDIAN PENAL CODE,1860

According to sections 428 and 429 of the Indian Penal Code, it is illegal to maim or injure
any animal. Acts like throwing acid on cows, injuring street dogs and cats also invite
punishment, which in a way serves as a caveat for many reckless drivers on the road. The
Code also makes it illegal for cars to injure or kill dogs, cats and cows on the street.
Offenders are either handed over to the local animal protection group or a police station.
Further, a criminal case is filed against them. A minimum penalty of Rs. 2000 and/or up to
five years of imprisonment are awarded to the guilty.21

 ANIMAL TESTING OF COSMETICS BANNED IN INDIA

19
INDIAN WILDLIFE PROTECTION ACT,1972
20
THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS (PCA) ACT, 1960
21
INDIAN PENAL CODE,1860
11 | P a g e
THE UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI LAW ACADEMY
 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

In 2014, India introduced a nationwide ban on animal testing cosmetics. The ban on animal
testing makes it illegal to use chemicals on their skin or feed them lethal doses. Moreover,
any medical or research institute cannot pick up stray animals from the street for the purpose
of experimentation. To report cases of illegal animal testing, which causes ‘considerable
suffering’ to animals, a national helpline has also been launched.

In a judgment Sri Somnath Kisku And Anr vs The State Of Assam And Anr ,

It was pronounced by the additional sessions judge in Bijni under Bodoland Territorial
Council (BTC) on June 17, 2019, Somnath Kisku and Dhojen Tudu were convicted under
Section 51(1) first proviso of the Wildlife Protection (Assam Amendment) Act, 2009 for
hunting three hares, two mongooses, a dove, a bulbul and a barbet. Mongooses belong to Part
II of Schedule II of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972, and the other birds and animals fall
under Schedule IV specified animals.22

In the case , Govindanaika vs State Of Karnataka on 4 February, 2013

It was pronounced by the judge that the accused Govindanaika is sentenced to seven years
rigorous imprisonment and Rs 50,000 fine, and in default of payment of fine, they would be
further sentenced to simple imprisonment for another six months.23

22
I.A.(Crl.) 673/2019
23
Govindanaika vs State Of Karnataka on 4 February, 2013
12 | P a g e
THE UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI LAW ACADEMY
 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

 PROCEDURE FOR TRIAL FOR OFFENCE OF HUNTING WILD

ANIMALS:
 COLLECTION OF INTELLIGENCE

Intelligence information is collected to forecast, analyze, and publicize, prevent, or monitor

criminal activities. From sporadic incidents of poaching (mainly for meat), wildlife crimes
have now increased to organized criminal activities with international criminality. The
collection of intelligence about such organized criminal networks, and their activities, and the
aggregation of such information on a real-time basis require time to effectively deal with
wildlife crimes

WCCB Bureau Headquarters, New Delhi or its regional offices at Delhi, Mumbai, Chennai,
Kolkata, and Jabalpur.

 REGISTRATION OF CASES

In traditional offenses, the investigation of the case in the form of First Information Report
(FIR) begins. However, in wildlife crime, seizure of wildlife/wildlife articles or apprehension
of accused or suspect before registration of the case.

In wildlife offenses, the investigation can begin with an arrest/seizure by an authorized

officer, recording a threat/crime report or seizure. In various states the report is known by
various names like seizure intensity preliminary report (POR), crime report, first information
report (FIR), H-2 case, etc.

The first report submitted to a judicial court in wildlife crime cases can be called the Wildlife
Crime Report (WLOR). Wildlife crime report should be prepared under section 50 (4) of the
Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.24

 SEARCH AND SEIZURE

Search and seizure should be done as per the provisions of Section 50 of the Wildlife
(Protection) Act, 1972. Although the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 gives the authorized
officer the power to enter, search, arrest, and detention but the procedure prescribed under
section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC), such as discovery in the presence of
two independent witnesses. To conduct, prepare a list of things seized during the search,

24
http://www.wpsi-india.org/publications/Offences_under_WPA_%20Case_Law.pdf
13 | P a g e
THE UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI LAW ACADEMY
 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

conduct search of female occupants using female officers, handover of the seer of the
overwritten search list, etc., must be strictly followed.

 ARREST

The arrest of the accused is an integral part of the investigation into wildlife crimes. Forest
officers and police officers, not below the rank of sub-inspector, are the most vulnerable and
detained inspector under sections 50 (1) (c) and 50 (3) of Wildlife (Protection) Act 1972.25

 WHO CAN INVESTIGATE A WILDLIFE OFFENSE?

Wildlife Protection Act 1972, under Sec 50, (8) provides for special powers that are not
below the rank of Asstt. Director of Wildlife Preservation and Asstt. Conservator of Forests
For an investigation of offenses under this Act. It just means that the concerned authorities
have additional powers for investigation and It is not that they are the only officers to conduct
such an investigation.

The Hon. Supreme Court of India, in CBI v/s Motilal (2001) has held that the Police and the
CBI can also investigate wildlife offenses.

 COMPOUNDING OF OFFENSES

Section 54 of the Wildlife Protection (Protection) Act 1972 does not give the Director of
Wildlife Protection or any other officer below the rank of Assistant Director of Wildlife
Conservation notified by the Central Government and the Chief Wildlife Warden or any other
officer.

The post of the sub-forest guardian for confessing from any person against whom a
reasonable suspicion exists that he has committed an offense against the act, by paying the
amount of money by way of compounding of the offense to such person Is suspected The
sum of money accepted or accepted as composition shall not, in any case, exceed twenty-five
thousand rupees. Upon payment of such funds to the authorized officer, the suspect, if in
custody, will be discharged and no further proceedings will be taken against him in
connection with the offense.

 PROSECUTION OF CASES IN COURTS

25
http://wccb.gov.in/WriteReadData/userfiles/file/Wildlife%20Crime%20Investigation%20Manual.pdf
14 | P a g e
THE UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI LAW ACADEMY
 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

Under Section 55 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, cases are filed in accordance with
the provisions of sections 244 to 248 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Each court should have a forest officer to follow the prosecution in the cases under trial,
execution of procedures, ensuring the presence of witnesses and briefing them before
evidence, in progress through an immediate superior to judicial ACF / DCF Should present
daily court diary. Hearing of cases listed in court on that day, the presence and performance
of prosecution witnesses and public prosecutors, the next date of hearing, and any other
observation of their relevance during the trial proceedings.26

 WRITING THE COMPLAINT

Complaint is to be filed within the 60 days of arrest of the first accused in case of judicial
custody of the accused.

should be preferably typed, or should be neatly handwritten without any over writings or
alterations

Should be specific and without any ambiguity.

Should be in plain language and narrated sequentially.

Name of the species, Schedule, quantum of punishment prescribed whether accused is a first
time or a repeat offender should be mentioned.

Authorized officer filing the complaint should sign all pages of the WLOR.

Complaint must have a prayer seeking imprisonment and / or fine27

 ROLE OF SUPERVISORY OFFICERS

Supervisory officers are required to personally supervise the investigation and travel to the
crime scene as far as possible. DFO / DCF should keep a running notebook of reported
wildlife offenses under their jurisdiction, wherein they should file a summary of the WL OR
and the main points of subsequent investigations on a regular basis.

 POST-TRIAL ACTION

26
http://mpforest.gov.in/hrd/trainingmodule/Wildlife/19-Wildlife%20Crime%20and%20Legal%20Issues.pdf
27
http://nbaindia.org/uploaded/Biodiversityindia/Legal/15.%20Wildlife%20(Protection)%20Act,%201972.pdf
15 | P a g e
THE UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI LAW ACADEMY
 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

When a final order is made by the trial court in a wildlife crime case, a copy of the judgment
should be obtained and analyzed by the concerned DCF / ACF and sent to the next higher
formats with his comments and sentencing. In this case, there should be sufficient
punishment. Given. In the case of acquittal, DCF will have to comment and send it to the
legal cell if there is scope for appeal.28

In the case of Indian Handicrafts Emporium and Ors.vs. UOI and Ors. 29 (2003) 7 SCC 589 -
Supreme Court

Offence made under Article 14, 19 (1) (g) & 19 (1) 6 of COI, Sections 39,4,49-C, of WPA
Total prohibition on trade in ivory under the WPA held to be reasonable. Trade that are
dangerous to the ecology may be regulated or totally prohibited and therefore regulation
includes prohibition. Traders are a class by themselves. In absence of such criminal trial and
offence having been found committed, Section 39 may not have any application. In that view
of the matter it is evident that the properties do not stand vested in the Government in terms
there for. The purport and object of the Act must be given its full effect

In the case ,Shashi Singh vs. State of Haryana,2006 (3) RCR (Criminal) 624 - High Court of
Punjab & Haryana30

Offence made under Sections 9,39,50 ,57 of WPA Taking the life of a defenceless animal, on
the verge of extinction, hunting of which is specifically prohibited by Section 9 read with
Schedule I of the Act, committed by the petitioners, so grave and heinous as to dissuade
extending the anticipatory bail to them

In the case , Sansar Chand vs. State of Rajasthan (2010) 10 SCC 604 - Supreme Court31

Offence made under Articles 21, 48-A and 51-A(g) of the Constitution of India, Sections
9,49-,50 and 51 of the WPA Ecological chain and balance - Importance of wildlife
conservation for the society. Directions issued by Supreme Court to Central and State
Governments and their agencies to make efforts to preserve India's Wildlife and take
stringent action against those violating provisions of Wildlife(Protection) Act. Extra-judicial
confession in this case was corroborated by other material on record. Hence, conviction is
sustained
28
https://parivesh.nic.in/writereaddata/WildlifeProtectionAmendmentBill2013.pdf
29
. (2002) 4 SCC 713
30
2006 (3) RCR (Criminal) 624
31
(2010) 10 SCC 604
16 | P a g e
THE UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI LAW ACADEMY
 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

In the case, State of M.P.vs. Madhukar Rao, JT 2008 (1) SC364 Supreme Court32

Offence made under Section 39 Any attempt to operationalize Section 39(1)(d) of the Act
merely on the basis of seizure and accusation/allegations levelled by the departmental
authorities would bring it into conflict with the constitutional provisions and would render it
unconstitutional and invalid.

INDIAN WILDLIFE (PROTECTION) ACT,

AMENDMENT OF 2002:
The 2002 Amendment Act which came into force in January, 2003 have made punishment
and penalty for offences under the Act more stringent.

 OFFENCE

For offences relating to wild animals (or their parts and products) included in schedule-I or
part II of Schedule- II and those relating to hunting or altering the boundaries of a sanctuary
or national park the punishment and penalty have been enhanced, the minimum imprisonment
prescribed is three years which may extend to seven years, with a minimum fine of Rs.
10,000/-. For a subsequent offence of this nature, the term of imprisonment shall not be less
than three years but may extend to seven years with a minimum fine of Rs. 25,000. Also a
new section (51 - A) has been inserted in the Act, making certain conditions applicable while
granting bail: 'When any person accused of the commission of any offence relating to
Schedule I or Part II of Schedule II or offences relating to hunting inside the boundaries of
National Park or Wildlife Sanctuary or altering the boundaries of such parks and sanctuaries,
is arrested under the provisions of the Act, then not withstanding anything contained in the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, no such person who had been previously convicted of an
offence under this Act shall be released on bail unless

a) The Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity of opposing the release on bail;
and
b) Where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the Court is satisfied that there
are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offences and that he
is not likely to commit any offence while on bail".

32
2008 (1) SC364
17 | P a g e
THE UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI LAW ACADEMY
 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

In order to improve the intelligence gathering in wildlife crime, the existing provision for
rewarding the informers has been increased from 20% of the fine and composition money
respectively to 50% in each case. In addition to this, a reward up to Rs. 10,000/- is also
proposed to be given to the informants and others who provide assistance in detection of
crime and apprehension of the offender.

At present, persons having ownership certificate in respect of Schedule I and Part II of

Schedule II animals, can sell or gift such articles. This has been amended with a view to curb
illegal trade, and thus no person can now acquire Schedule I or Part II of Schedule II animals,
articles or trophies except by way of inheritance (except live elephants).

Stringent measures have also been proposed to forfeit the properties of hardcore criminals
who have already been convicted in the past for heinous wildlife crimes. These provisions are
similar to the provisions of 'Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985'.
Provisions have also been made empowering officials to evict encroachments from Protected
Areas.33

 OFFENCES NOT PERTAINING TO HUNTING OF ENDANGERED SPECIES

Offences related to trade and commerce in trophies, animals articles etc. derived from certain
animals (exception: chapter V A and section 38J) attracts a term of imprisonment up to three
years and/or a fine up to Rs. 25,000/-.34

CONCLUSION:

33
Sinha, Samir (2010). Handbook on wildlife law enforcement in India (PDF). TRAFFIC India, WWF-India. New
Delhi: Natraj Publishers. p. 117
34
"WILDLIFE (PROTECTION) ACT, CHAPTER VI". Archived from the origina
18 | P a g e
THE UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI LAW ACADEMY
 ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

Hunting of Wild animals is considered illegal not in the early phase of period but the
government is active and considering it illegal just after the French revolution and many laws
and provisions were laid down for the regulation of the hunting of animals.

Banning hunting is also a necessary step taken by the government as it almost unbalances the
ecosystem and deteriorating nature. The major reason according to my presumption for
considering hunting as illegal is that it leads to extinction of many species of wild animals
and affecting the biodiversity which is the main focus of any country.

The abovementioned material and cases explains how the exception area is essential for the
development of the country instead of extinction of wild animal species due to hunting, some
areas which were considered so much important for the development of Nation, are eligible
to do hunting for their purposes whenever they need without being booked under the
provision of law and the different acts. Yes, this is also an important element for any nation
to compete and develop with any other nation but for that continuous hunting of wild animals
is never a solution. Government should not bring more laws for hunting prohibition, the most
important thing is that the laws which were existing currently for the regulation of prohibition
of hunting should be strictly followed and regulated. For better control on it, the government
should make a special committee which looks after the activities of the members of these
three departments to whom hunting is allowed for their purpose for contributing to the
development of the nation and this committee should look after their day to day activities so
that extra hunting more than necessary should not be exercised and if anybody does extras
than necessary requirement then they should be punished as per the given law or existing law.

19 | P a g e
THE UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI LAW ACADEMY