The Delhi High Court has ruled that awarding a sentence below the statutory minimum under the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 is impermissible. The court emphasized that doing so would frustrate the objective of the legislation and set a dangerous precedent for future cases.

Justice Chandra Dhari Singh underscored the legislative intent behind prescribing minimum punishments, stating:

“The stringent provisions, including the exclusion of probationary relief, reflect the legislative determination to deter illegal trade and exploitation of endangered species. Granting a sentence lesser than the prescribed minimum would weaken the enforcement mechanism envisaged by the legislature.”

Read Also:- Delhi High Court Orders Demolition of Illegal Slums on Yamuna Floodplains for Environmental Protection

Background of the Case

The case involved a plea filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) challenging a Special Judge’s order that sentenced individuals convicted under the Wildlife Protection Act to a period already undergone in jail and imposed a fine of ₹20,000.

The accused had pleaded guilty and were initially fined ₹10,000 each, but this was later modified on appeal by the CBI. The allegations against them stemmed from a 2005 investigation, where eight Shahtoosh shawls, derived from the endangered Tibetan Antelope and listed under Schedule I of the Wildlife Protection Act, were recovered from their premises.

CBI argued that Section 51(1A) of the Act mandates a minimum punishment of three years imprisonment, extendable up to seven years, along with a fine of at least ₹10,000. The agency contended that the Special Judge erred by not enforcing the minimum statutory punishment.

Justice Singh, in his ruling, noted that wildlife-related offenses threaten ecological balance and biodiversity. The court observed:

“The prohibition extends not only to poaching but also to possession, trade, and facilitation of trade in endangered species. Overlooking this crucial aspect undermines the law’s intent.”

The court highlighted key legal precedents, including the Supreme Court’s ruling in State of M.P. v. Vikram Das (2019), which reaffirmed that when a statute prescribes a minimum sentence, courts have no discretion to impose a lesser penalty.

Read Also:- Delhi High Court: No Presumption of Pending Investigation Without Proof in Sabka Vishwas Scheme Case

Furthermore, Section 51(5) of the Wildlife Protection Act explicitly excludes the application of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, barring any leniency except for minors. The court found that the Special Judge’s ruling had wrongly applied leniency, contradicting settled legal principles.

Concluding its decision, the Delhi High Court set aside the Special Judge’s judgment and remanded the case back for re-sentencing in line with the mandatory provisions of the Wildlife Protection Act.

“The accused persons have been convicted of dealing in products derived from endangered species. The law mandates a strict minimum punishment, and deviation from this requirement would defeat its purpose.”

The ruling reaffirms the importance of stringent legal enforcement in cases involving environmental and wildlife crimes, setting a precedent for future cases concerning protected species.

Key Takeaways

• Strict Enforcement: The High Court ruled that courts cannot grant sentences below the prescribed minimum in wildlife protection cases.
• Legal Precedent: The decision aligns with Supreme Court judgments reinforcing mandatory minimum sentencing.
• Impact on Wildlife Conservation: The ruling strengthens enforcement against illegal wildlife trade, ensuring accountability and deterrence.

Title: CBI v. MD. YASEEN WANI & ORS.