Back
G. A. SANAP
Makbool Ahmed – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra, Thru. Deputy Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation(CBI) – Respondent
JUDGMENT
These two revisions arise out of Regular Criminal Case No. 236/2001 and therefore, they are being disposed of by the common judgment.
2. The applicant in Cri. Revision No. 82/2013 is the original accused no.1 and the applicant in Cri. Revision No. 83/2013 is the original accused no.2. In this judgment, they shall be referred by their nomenclature as accused no.1 and accused no.2.
3. Challenge in these revision applications is to the common judgment and order dated 23.05.2013, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Criminal Appeal Nos. 88/2007 and 97/2007, whereby learned Judge has dismissed the appeals filed by accused nos.1 and 2 against the judgment and order of their conviction and sentence passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur in Regular Criminal Case No. 236/2001 dated 09.04.2007 for the offence punishable under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 49, 49-B and 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1972” for short). Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, on conviction of accused nos.1 and 2, had sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six years and to pay fine of R
Transportation of huge quantity of wild animal products – Sentence awarded by Court must be an example by way of deterrence for others—In such crimes, misplaced sympathy while awarding sentence can s....
Conviction for illegal wildlife trade upheld; sentence reduced reflecting appellants' youth, emphasizing rigorous evidential standards in wildlife protection cases.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the strict requirement of confessions to be recorded by an authorized officer not below a specified rank, as mandated by the Wildlife (Protectio....
The court ruled that a second FIR is permissible if it pertains to different incidents, emphasizing the need for wildlife protection under the law.
The prosecution must prove crucial evidence, such as seizure memos and expert reports, to support convictions under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for strict interpretation of criminal statutes and the need to suppress mischief and advance the legislative object. The judgment a....
The court emphasized that a flawed investigation process and failure to adhere to legal procedures undermine the prosecution's case, leading to the absolution of accused due to a lack of credible evi....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
