CHHANGA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal Revision mentioned above u/s 397 read with Section 401 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to for short, " Cr. P. C".) preferred by the applicant, being aggrieved from the orders/Judgment dated 4.7.2005 in Criminal Case No. 166/01 by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Katni by which the applicant/petitioner Chhange son of Dhanu Baretha has been convicted u/s 51 of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (53 of 1972)(hereinafter referred to for short, " the Act".) and sentenced to R.I. for two years with fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rs. Five thousand only) in default RI for 3 months. In an appeal preferred by applicant/petitioner Chhange bearing no.99/05 before First Additional Judge to the Court of First Additional Sessions Judge, Katni vide Judgment and findings dated 28.11.2005 has dismissed the appeal by maintaining conviction and sentence as mentioned above. Hence this Criminal revision has been filed on the following grounds:

(2.) IN nutshell the prosecution case is that on 15.11.97, three kilogram wild meat of wild animal (Pig) was seized from the house of the accused. The seizure proceeding was made by Dy. Ranger Shri R.N. Parihar (PW 2), Forest Guard, Shri Vidyadhar Pandey (PW 3) and Security Guard Shri Raj Kumar Pathak (PW 5) on information received by Mukhbir. It has been alleged that accused/applicant was guilty for hunting the pig (wild animal) For that accused has been prosecuted for the offence u/s 51 of the Act .

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the applicant submitted that both the courts below erred in holding the guilt of applicant as there is no single word about identity of the alleged meat/flesh that it was of wild animal. He further submits that only by scientific test it can be ascertained that whether the flesh is of any wild animal or of tame animal as pig is also a tame animal. In order to differentiate the tame animal or wild animal can only be ascertained by a scientific test for which a scientific laboratory has been established at Deharadoon but in this case the alleged flesh/meat was not sent for scientific analysis so it can not be said that the said flesh/meat was of wild animal.