Courts cannot impose sentences below the statutory minimum mandated by law, ensuring adherence to legislative intent in wildlife protection.

ORDER :

CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.

1. The instant revision petition under Section 397 read with Sections 401/482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter “CrPC”) [now Sections 438/442/528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter “BNSS”)] has been filed on behalf of the petitioner/revisionist seeking setting of the judgment dated 22^nd July, 2022, passed by the learned Special Judge (PC Act), Rouse Avenue District Courts, New Delhi, in Criminal Appeal No. 2/2022.

2. The brief facts that led to the filing of the instant revision petition are that learned Trial Court convicted the accused persons/respondents for the offences punishable under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter “IPC”) read with Sections 49(B)(1) and 58 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (hereinafter “the Act”) punishable under Section 51 of the said Act. The allegations against the accused persons were that, in the year 2005, during search of some of the accused persons' premises, total eight Shahtoosh Shawls, which are banned under Schedule I of the Act were recovered and some more shawls were recovered from the premises of the other co-accused persons. Based on the said recovery, CBI registered FIR bearing RC No. SIB 2005 E0010-EOU-V in the year 2005 (CBI No. 270/2019).

3. In the case against the accused persons before the learned Trial Court, (CBI No. 270/2019), the accused persons, upon pleading guilty, were found guilty of the allegations made against them vide order dated 23^rd November, 2021. Further, vide order dated 14^th December, 2021, the learned Trial Court passed the order on sentence against the accused persons, wherein, they were sentenced to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each, and in default, simple imprisonment for two months.

4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order on sentence, CBI filed an appeal before the learned Special Judge who, vide the impugned judgment dated 22^nd July, 2022, modified the order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court to the extent that all the accused persons were now sentenced for the offences under Section 120B of the IPC read with Section 49(B)(1), punishable with Section 51(1A) of the Act for the period already undergone in jail and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- and in default of payment of fine, the accused persons shall undergo simple imprisonment of three months.

5. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 22^nd July, 2022, the petitioner has filed the instant petition seeking setting aside of the same.

6. Mr. Ravi Sharma, learned SPP appearing on behalf of the petitioner/revisionist submitted that the impugned judgment is bad in law and liable to be set aside as the same has been passed without taking into consideration the settled position of law.

7. It is submitted that Section 51(1A) of the Act, under which the respondents have been convicted, provides for minimum punishment of three years which may extend to seven years, and also with fine not less than Rs. 10,000/-. Hence, the discretion in awarding sentence of imprisonment has to be exercised within the statutory framework provided by the legislature, wherein, awarding a minimum punishment of three years has been mandated.

8. It is submitted that Section 51(5) of the Act provides for the exclusion of provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (hereinafter “Probation Act”) and Section 360 of the CrPC qua the offences provided for under Chapter VA of the A