GULAM RASHUL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) P. K. Jain, J. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned A. G. A.

(2.) REVISIONIST Gulam Rashul was convicted for offence under Section 51 of the Wild Life Protection, Act 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for violation of provisions of Sections 9 (2) and 17 (1) of the said Act and was sen tenced to undergo 6 months' RI and pay a fine of Rs. 500/- vide judgment and order dated 26-5-82. Appeal preferred by him was dismissed by the appellate Court and the judgment and order of the trial Court was maintained.

(3.) THERE is concurrent finding of the Courts below that the revisionist was ap prehended in the sanctuary and one of his associates travelling with him on the motor cycle was armed with a gun and escaped from the scene of occurrence. Section 27 of the said Act prohibits the entry in the sanctuary except in accord ance with the conditions of permit provided under Section 28 of the said Act. It is not the case of the revisionist that he was holding the permit for entry in the sanctuary. Section 51 of said Act provides punishment for contravention of any of the provisions of the Act or rules or order made thereunder. In my view, therefore, the trial Court ought to have convicted the revisionist under Section 51 read with Sec tion 27 of the said Act. Conviction of the revisionist under Section 51 for violation of provisions of Sections 9 (2) and 17 (1) of the Act deserves to be set aside and instead the revisionist deserves to be convicted for violation of the provisions of Section 27 (1) of the Act.