Page 142 - ELT_1st June 2020_VOL 372_Part 5th

676 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

concerned department/officer of Orissa, he has violated the
provisions of Section 43 of the 1972 Act.
(e) As the accused while in possession of the animal articles did
not inform regarding the possession to any administration or
wild life authority or also did not take any permission from
the Chief Wild Life Warden of such Government property, he
has violated the provisions of Section 39 of the 1972 Act.
(vii) The complainant therefore alleges that as the accused was dealing
in animal articles derived from scheduled animal, which is prohibit-
ed on and after the specified date, i.e. 25-1-1987, so he has violated
the provisions of Section 49B(1)(a) of the 1972 Act and was liable to
be prosecuted and punished under Section 51(1A) of the 1972 Act.
5. On such complaint being filed the Ld. CMM was pleased to take
cognizance of the offence and transfer the case to the Ld. Metropolitan Magis-
trate, 11th Court, Calcutta. After the direction being passed the prosecution sup-
plied copy of the complaint, which was received by the petitioner as reflected
from the order dated 15-7-1996.
6 The prosecution in order to prove its charge adduced the evidence of
PW1 Ashim Kumar Saha, Senior Intelligence Officer, DRI; PW2 Anup Raj Damta,
Intelligence Officer, DRI; PW3 Dilip Chattopadhyay, Senior Intelligence Officer,
DRI; PW4 Sajal Baran Das, complainant; and PW5 Dr. Sujit Chakraborty, Joint
Director, Zoological Survey of India and also relied upon 6 documents and 7 Ma-
terial Exhibits.
7. After the examination of evidence before charge of the 5 prosecution
witnesses were over, the Ld. Trial Court was pleased to frame charge against the
present petitioner under Sections 40(2), 49, 9 and 43 of the 1972 Act which is pun-
ishable under Section 51(1A) of the 1972 Act.
8. The defence was thereafter afforded opportunity for cross-
examination and on completion of the cross-examination of all the 5 witnesses so
relied upon by the prosecution, the present petitioner was examined under Sec-
tion 313 of the CrPC.
9. After the examination as aforesaid was over the Ld. Court called on
the defence to adduce its evidence in support of its case, accordingly the defence
cited one witness namely, Md. Sonaullah as a witness.
10. The Ld. Magistrate on appreciation of the evidence adduced by the
prosecution as also by the defences was pleased to hold the present petitioner not
guilty in respect of offences under Sections 9, 43 and 49 of the 1972 Act and held
the petitioner guilty for commission of the offence under Section 40(2) of the 1972
Act read with Section 51(1A) of the said Act and sentenced him as aforesaid.
11. The present petitioner being aggrieved by the judgment and order
of conviction and sentence passed by the Ld. Magistrate preferred an appeal be-
ing Criminal Appeal No. 31 of 2010. The Ld. Appellate Court after reappraisal of
the evidence and the judgment and order of the Ld. Trial Court was pleased to
affirm the finding of guilt as well as the order of conviction and sentence so
passed by the Ld. Magistrate.
12. This Court after taking into account the judgment delivered by the
Ld. Trial Court and the Ld. Appellate Court felt that re-appreciation of the
EXCISE LAW TIMES  1st June 2020  142