Back
2007 Supreme(Del) 1826
High Court Of Delhi
MUKUL MUDGAL,P. K. BHASIN
COTTAGE INDUSTRIES EXPOSITION LTD. - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondents
Crl. M. 10870 Of 2006
Decided On : 09/03/2007
ALTAF H.NAYAK, Anil Nag, Anis Suhrawardy, DALIP MEHRA, Jitin Sahni, MALVIKA RAJKOTIA, Mukta Gupta, P.V.KAPUR, Raj Panjvani, RAJAT KATYAL, Sanjay Parikh, SAURABH SHARMA
Headnote:
WILDLIFE PROTECTION ACT - ANIMAL ARTICLE - HAIR - WHETHER EXCLUDED - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES - LEGISLATIVE INTENT - PURPOSE AND OBJECT OF THE ACT - INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS AND TREATIES.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a company engaged in value-added handicrafts, challenged the criminal proceedings initiated by Customs and Wildlife Department under the Customs Act and Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 (the Act). The main issue was whether the phrase 'animal article' excludes 'animal hair'. Petitioner contended that 'hair' was not part of the definition of 'animal article' as it was specifically included in the definition of 'trophy'.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that 'hair' is not excluded from the definition of 'animal article' and 'scheduled animal article' and was intended to be included by the legislature in the definition of 'animal articles' and of 'scheduled animal articles'. The Court found that the purpose of mentioning 'hair' in the definition of 'trophy' was different and it could not be construed that 'hair' was specifically left out of the definition of 'animal articles' merely because it was mentioned in the definition of 'trophy'. The Court also held that the legislative intent was to prohibit trade in scheduled animal articles, including those made from hair, and that the petitioner's plea would lead to an absurd result and would be contrary to known canons of interpretations and the legislative intent.
Issues: 1. Whether 'hair' is excluded from the definition of 'animal article' under the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972? 2. Interpretation of the phrase 'animal article' in the context of the Act's purpose and object, international conventions, and treaties.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court interpreted the phrase 'animal article' in the context of the Act's purpose and object, which is to protect wildlife and preserve endangered species. The Court held that 'hair' is not excluded from the definition of 'animal article' and that the legislative intent was to prohibit trade in scheduled animal articles, including those made from hair. 2. The Court considered the international conventions and treaties to which India is a party, which emphasize the need to protect endangered species and prohibit trade in their products. The Court held that the petitioner's plea would undermine these international obligations and would be contrary to the legislative intent.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the criminal proceedings initiated by Customs and Wildlife Department against the petitioner.
( 1 ) THIS writ petition challenges the criminal proceedings initiated by the officers of the Customs under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 and by the officers of the Wildlife Department under the provisions of Wildlife protection Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and seizure of 12 pieces of shawls, suspected to be made of 'shahtoosh wool'. The main question raised in this petition is whether the phrase 'animal article' excludes 'animal hair'. The petitioner No. 1 Cottage Industries Exposition Ltd. , is an incorporated company under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, which trades in value added handicrafts, carpets and other items in natural and artificial fiber. The petitioner No. 2 Mr. Rajender Kumar Mehta is in charge of the exports of the petitioner no. 1. The respondent No. 1 is Union of India through the Secretary to the Government, Ministry of Environment and Forest. The respondent no. 2 is the Collector of Customs, Indira Gandhi International Airport. The respondent No. 3 is the State of Jammu and Kashmir through its Chief Secretary. The respondent No. 4 is the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi. The respondent No. 5 is the Director, Wildlife Preservations, Ministry of environment and Forest.
( 2 ) THE brief facts of this case as per the case set up by the petitioner through his Senior counsel Shri Sanjay Parikh as under:
(a) On 6th April 1996, 16th April 1996 and 12th May 1996, M/s Istihaq and co. supplied various types of shawls to the petitioner company. The supplies included shawls which have been seized by the respondent. (b) On 7th November, 1996, the petitioner no. 2 made arrangement for the export of the consignment containing some shawls, scarfs and kimonos (hereinafter referred to as the "export material") to England which were deposited at the Cargo Terminal of the Indira Gandhi International Airport, to be air lifted to England. (c) The export material was inspected by the Customs Authorities at the airport, who objected to the export of some of the shawls suspecting them to be shahtoosh shawls and refused their export and detained the said shawls. (d) On 11th November, 1996 two Panches namely Shri Charanjeet Singh Grover and Shri Ram Kumar were called. The proceedings before the Panches are recorded in the Punchnama dated 11th November, 1996. The Punchnama recorded as follows: (i) The respondents suspecting 12 shawls to be shahtoosh shawls out of the export material allegedly having been manufactured out of shahtoosh wool took the samples for forensic test to the Wildlife Institute of India. (ii) According to the Customs Authorities, Wildlife officials were also called as trading in shahtoosh wool is strictly prohibited as it falls in schedule I of the Wildlife (Protection) Act. (iii) The export of shahtoosh shawls is prohibited as it falls under the 'negative List' of the export of Exim Policy 1992-97. (iv) The shawls and the remaining export material were detained and seized pending an enquiry in the matter on the ground that the shawls which are made of shahtoosh wool are liable to be confiscated under the Customs Act, under the wildlife Act and the remaining export material was used for concealment of the seized shawls and at present are in the custody of the respondents.
( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner no. 1 submitted as follows:
(a) The Wildlife (Protection) Act prohibits dealing with 'animal Article' or 'trophy' which are defined as under: "section 2 (2) Animal Article " animal Article means an article made from any captive animal or wild animal, other than vermin, and includes an article or object in which the whole or any part of such animal (has been used and ivory imported into India and an article made therefrom ). Section 2 (31) " Trophy trophy means the whole or any part of any captive animal or wild animal, other than vermin, which has been kept or preserved by any means, whether artificial or natural, and includes,
