Page 139 - ELT_1st June 2020_VOL 372_Part 5th

2020 ] QUASIM ALI v. SAJAL BARAN DAS 673

2020 (372) E.L.T. 673 (Cal.)
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Tirthankar Ghosh, J.
QUASIM ALI
Versus
SAJAL BARAN DAS
C.R.R. No. 3523 of 2010, decided on 23-12-2019
Search and seizure - Conduct of - Investigation done by Wild Life Au-
thorities and DRI conducted search and seizure - No documentary evidence for
authorisation to DRI for search and seizure - No information given to local
police prior to search - No document produced for materials/documents
seized/reseized from DRI by complainant, Authorized Ranger under Wild Life
(Protection) Act, 1972 - Despite opportunities for Customs/DRI, only xerox
copy tendered and it was not submitted under oath - HELD : It was not mere
irregularity - There was grave suspicion regarding manner and mode of search
and seizure, and it could not be used for conviction of offence under Wild Life
(Protection) Act, 1972. [paras 25, 26, 28]
Statement before DRI - Under Section 108 of Customs Act, 1962 - It is
very weak evidence which cannot be relied on for criminal conviction without
corroboration in material particulars - Though statement can be used for prose-
cution under Customs Act, 1962 it cannot be used as foundation for offence
under Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. [para 27]
Petition allowed
CASES CITED
Moti Lal v. Central Bureau of Investigation — AIR 2002 SC 1691
— Distinguished .................................................................................................................. [Paras 19, 23]
Noor Aga v. State of Punjab — (2008) 16 SCC 417 — Relied on ......................................... [Paras 18, 21, 27]
State of Gujarat v. Anwar Osman Sumbhaniya — MANU/SC/0286/2019
— Relied on ....................................................................................................................... [Paras 18, 22, 27]
State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh — 1994 (70) E.L.T. 481 (S.C.) — Referred ............................... [Paras 18, 20]
State v. NMT Joy Immaculate — 2004 (5) SCC 729 — Distinguished ................................... [Paras 19, 24]
REPRESENTED BY : S/Shri Sudipto Moitro and Kushal Paul, for the Peti-
tioner.
Ms. Rituparna De Ghosh and Shri Kaushik Dey, for
the Respondent.
[Order]. - The present revisional application is directed against the
judgment and order, dated 26th November, 2010 passed by the Ld. Additional
District & Sessions Judge, 9th Fast Track Court, Bichar Bhavan, Calcutta, in Crim-
inal appeal No. 31 of 2010 wherein the Ld. Appellate Court was pleased to affirm
the judgment and order of sentence passed by the Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate
(hereinafter referred to as Ld. Magistrate), 11th Court, Calcutta in Case No. 718
of 1996 (TR No. 107 of 1996). The Ld. Magistrate was pleased to convict the ac-
cused/petitioner under Section 40(2) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972
(hereinafter referred to as the 1972 Act) read with Section 51(1A) of the said Act
and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for 3 (three) years and fine of
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st June 2020  139