Page 141 - ELT_1st June 2020_VOL 372_Part 5th

2020 ] QUASIM ALI v. SAJAL BARAN DAS 675

one room at the roof top. During search the officers of DRI recov-
ered 3 pieces of tiger skin wrapped in one gunny bag, 6 elephant
tusks, 290 tiger nails and 1 rhino horn wrapped in one gunny bag.
The complainant alleges that tusks of elephant and rhino are in-
cluded in Schedule-I of the 1972 Act vide Sl. Nos. 39, 30, 12B of Part
I respectively.
(iii) The accused person could not produce any docu-
ment/permit/certificate in support of the aforesaid goods being le-
gally procured and also could not provide any satisfactory explana-
tion regarding the procurement, possession, control and business
with such material parts. The animals and other articles recovered
during the search were duly examined, described, marked and
sealed after taking measurements and weights wherever possible.
The copy of the seizure list was handed over to the accused.
(iv) On 5-8-1995 the accused was summoned at about 17:45 hours under
Section 108 of the Customs Act to appear and his statement was
recorded in response to the enquiries which were made in presence
of senior intelligence officers. The accused was thereafter produced
before the Ld. CMM on 6-8-1995 and he was remanded to jail custo-
dy. The case papers were subsequently handed over to the Wild
Life Wing, West Bengal for taking action under the 1972 Act.
(v) On 2-11-1995 the seized articles along with other papers relating to
the case were received by the complainant from DRI. Thereafter the
seized articles were sent to Zoological Survey of India, Calcutta for
identification as per the Court Order dated 9-1-1996 and on 15-2-
1996 the report by concerned department was submitted before the
Court.
(vi) (a) As the accused did not obtain any permission from the author-
ized officer for acquiring or keeping in posses-
sion/transfer/transport of the animal parts derived from ani-
mals specified in Schedule-I of the 1972 Act, he has violated
the provisions of Section 40(2) of the 1972 Act.
(b) As the accused procured the wild life animal articles men-
tioned in the seizure list other than from a dealer or from the
person authorized to sell or otherwise transfer the same under
the 1972 Act, he has violated the provisions of Section 49 of the
1972 Act.
(c) As the accused failed to produce any permit/certificate in
support of legal collection/procurement/transfer or any doc-
ument relating to stock declaration, it is alleged that the parts
so derived from wild animals which were hunted illegally
from nature by his self arrangement of hunting and as such
has violated the provisions of Section 9 of the 1972 Act.
(d) As the accused admitted before the DRI that the said animal
articles were collected from Orissa and trans-
ferred/transported to Calcutta without any ownership certifi-
cate of the said articles without taking any permission from the
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st June 2020  141