Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
J.C.DOSHI
Manish Bhupendrabhai Panwala – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondent
ORDER :
J. C. DOSHI, J.
1. By way of the present petition, petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:-
“A) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to quash and set aside the Forest Offence First Report No. 2/2009-10 dated 6.11.2009 and the charge-sheet filed thereunder before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Talala.
(B) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of the Application, YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to stay further proceedings of the impugned Forest Offence First Report, in the interest of justice;”
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:-
2. The petitioner, a journalist associated with NDTV for over 14 years and a South Gujarat correspondent, had visited the Gir National Park and Sanctuary on 4th and 5th November 2009 along with two others—Ajay Patel and Bhavik Gonnavala, who are affiliated with the NGO “Prayas” working in the field of animal and environmental welfare. The group had entered the forest with valid permits and in the company of an official guide. Later that night, while refueling his vehicle in the city area, the petitioner was informed by local villagers that a lion was seen consuming its prey in an agricultural field outside the sanctuary limits. Out of curiosity, the pe
Criminal proceedings cannot commence without a valid complaint as required by Section 55 of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, rendering any prosecution based solely on a FIR legally unsustainable.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory nature of the provisions of Section 55 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, which mandates that no court shall take cognizance....
The main legal point established in this judgment is that procedural irregularities and violations of the Wildlife Crime Investigation Handbook can lead to the quashing of proceedings in a criminal c....
Forest officials lack jurisdiction to investigate IPC offences; investigations must be conducted by police under the law.
The court ruled that a second FIR is permissible if it pertains to different incidents, emphasizing the need for wildlife protection under the law.
Hunting of Rabbit – To attract violation of Section 9 of WL Act, it must be shown that a wild animal specified and detailed in schedules I, II, III and IV has been hunted.
(1) Psychotropic Substance – Recovery of anti-bodies of snake venom from accused will not fall within purview of a psychotropic substance and does not warrant invocation of provisions of NDPS Act.(2)....
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
