STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. C P KRISHNA NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD J. S. Pawar, A. P. P. for the State/appellant and Mr. Marwadi for the respondents.

(2.) THE State has filed this application challenging the Order of Magistrate, 22nd Court, Andheri, Mumbai (G. V. Wadekar) dated 3-7-1996 discharging all the respondents from their prosecution under the provisions of The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (in short "the Act" ).

(3.) IT was contended by the learned A. P. P. for the appellant that finding of the Magistrate that the complaint was barred by limitation was wrong because the bird Peafowl (Pavo Cristatus) at Sr. No. 11 in Part III of Schedule I was a protected bird which was found in possession of the accused-respondents, is made punishable under the proviso to section 51 and the sentence that is prescribed is six years and hence the complaint was filed within limitation. Mr. Marwadi tried to contend from the report of Zoology Expert Dr. M. S. Pradhan that the bird was described by Dr. Pradhan as Pavo Cristatus Linn and hence according to him this was different species of birds not falling under Part III of Schedule I of the Act.