LAWS(DLH)-1981-5-33

BABU LAL Vs. STATEDELHI ADMINISTRATION

Decided On May 26, 1981
BABU LAL Appellant
V/S
STATE OF DELHI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) H.C. Malik (Public Witness 2) U.D.C. of the office of the Cheif Wild Life Warden received a telephone call at 3.45 p.m. on October 18, 1978 from unknown person that there is a person dealing in skins in a house on Nawab Raod, Kasab Pura, Delhi. He passed on this information to the Wild Life Inspector Param Vir Singh (Public Witness ] ). Sometimes later in the day, at 5.30 p.m. or about they both reached the premises No. 6488, Nawab Road, Kasab Pura. Delhi, where there was a brush factory, partners in the factory; he himself and his sons Sohan Pal and Din Dayal. He admitted that six 'copard and one leopard cat skins were recovered from the smaller room adjacent to the main door which was in his possession on October, 18 1978. At that time his servant Mangal Sain was present. He did not know how these skins came in his room, and who kept them there. The other two accused persons, namely, Sohan Pal and Din Dayal also wrote a letter (Ex..PW1/G) to the Wild Life Warden stating that it is true that they are co-partners with their father Babu Lal and stood by his statement. The partnership deed (Ex. Public Witness Public Witness 1/F) dated April 2, 1974 provides that the partners shall personally attend to the business of the firm; shall carry on the business honestly and diligently and to the greatest common benefit and shall render full and true information of all affairs of the firm to one another. Each partner shall be entitled to operate upon every bank account on behalf of the firm.

(2.) After inquiry a complaint was lodged by Paramvir Singh against Babu Lal, Din Dayal, Sohan Pal and Mangal Sain under section 55 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (the Act) read with sections 40 and 44 thereof.

(3.) The accused Babu Lal in his examination under section 313 Cr. P.C. stated on September 29, 1980 that he was not aware of any raid having been conducted in the house which served as godown. He was actually in the hospital in those days and was not attending to any work for the last four years. He admitted that Mangal Sain was their employee but he does not work there. As regards his statement (Ex. Public Witness PW1/D) he stated that his signatures namely, Sohan Brush Factory is being run. They knocked the door and went inside. There were four rooms in the house. Accused No. 4 Mangal Sain an employee was found present in a room preparing brushes. There was a smaller room near the main gate. It had only one door which opened in the East in the courtyard. It was locked. It was opened by Mangal Sain. There were seven bundles lying there. Upon a search, six uncured skins of leopard and one uncured skin of leopard cat were found in them. They asked Mangal Sain whether he could produce any licence or authority for dealing in the said articles, but he could not. The Inspector prepared a seizure memo (Ex. Public Witness PW1/A) which was signed by H.C. Malik. He asked the persons present to be witnesses of recovery. But none agreed. Laier on, H.C. Malik (Public Witness 2) brought S.I. Jagbir Singh and two more policemen who also signed the seizure memo. While the seizure memo was being prepared Mangal Sain escaped. There was nobody to receive the copy of the seizure memo. The party returned to the office at 6.15 p.m. Mangal Sain later on sent a letter (Ex. Public Witness PWI/8) to the Chief Wild Life Warden that the skins were recovered in his presence wrapped in a hold-all. The hold-all was there in the house for the last two days but he did not know that it contained trophies. He was frightened and ran to accused Sohan Pal who had rented the premises and had engaged him for the purpose of preparing brushes. Accused Babu Lal made a statement (Ex. Public Witness PW1/D) on April 6, 1'J79 that he is & tenant of two rooms in house No. 6488. ,He admitted that he ran a factory of brush manufacturing at house No. 1159, Gali No. 11, Sadar Bazar and at 6488, Nawab Road. There was three rooms there but he was not told about its contents. The premises raided were lying vacant. One of its room was used as store. It always remained unlocked and had two doors both opening on the main road and the general public can pass through it.