MOHD RAHAMATULLAH HUSSAIN Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard both the learned counsel.

(2.) Sri G.S. Prakash Rao, the learned counsel representing the petitioner would submit that the alleged offence would not fall under Sections 9 and 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, for brevity hereinafter referred to as "the Act". Inasmuch as even if the allegations in the charge-sheet are taken on the face value, the animal died, rabbit, does not find place in Schedule I of the said Act. Hence Section 9 of the Act is not attracted.

(3.) On the contrary, the learned public prosecutor would contend that though Section 9 of the Act may not be attracted, prima facie, ingredients of Section 429 of the Indian Penal Code are attracted and hence the proceedings in toto cannot be quashed.