NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has reaffirmed that courts cannot impose a punishment lower than the minimum sentence prescribed under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh underscored the legislative intent behind the stringent provisions, emphasising that any dilution of the prescribed punishment would defeat the purpose of the law.
The court observed that the Act was enacted to curb wildlife-related crimes, a grave threat to ecological balance and biodiversity. It noted that the exclusion of probationary relief in such cases reflects the legislature’s intent to create a robust deterrent against illegal trade and exploitation of endangered species.
The ruling came in response to an appeal by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) challenging an order by a Special Judge. The lower court had sentenced several people convicted under the Wild Life Protection Act to imprisonment for the period already served and imposed a fine of Rs 20,000.
This was a modification of an earlier sentence, where the accused had pleaded guilty and were initially directed to pay Rs 10,000 each as fine.
The case stemmed from a 2005 raid, during which authorities recovered eight Shahtoosh shawls – banned under Schedule I of the Act – from the accused. The CBI argued that the convicts had been sentenced under Section 51(1A) of the Act, which mandates a minimum imprisonment of three years, extendable to seven years, along with a fine of no less than Rs 10,000. The agency contended that the Special Judge had erroneously exercised discretion by reducing the punishment below the statutory minimum.
Justice Singh concurred with the CBI, stating that the nature of the offence warranted strict adherence to penal provisions. He criticised the Special Judge’s approach, noting that modifying the sentence to only a fine and time already served effectively diluted the law’s intent.
Addressing the seriousness of the offence, the court rejected the argument that the accused were not directly involved in poaching. It clarified that the law prohibits not just hunting but also possession, trade, and facilitation of illegal wildlife products.
“The gravity of such crimes cannot be diminished merely because the accused were not engaged in the actual killing of the animals. The prohibition extends to all forms of involvement in the trade,” the Court observed.
The high court set aside the Special Judge order and directed the trial court to reconsider sentencing in accordance with the legal mandates. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration, with the direction that a revised order be passed expeditiously, preferably within three months.