Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: wild life protection act 1972 section 17 restrictions on hunting repealed Page 8 of about 3,288 results (0.238 seconds)

Princl. Chief Conservator of Forest and anr. Vs. J.K. Johnson and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : 2011(4)KLT98(SN)(C.No.110); (2011)10SCC794; 2012(1)SCC(Cri)431; 2012(1)SCJ603; 2012(2)MLJ257; AIR2012SC61; 2012(1)LW(Crl)407

..... important question raised in this appeal, by special leave, is : whether a specified officer empowered under section 54(1) of the wild life (protection) act, 1972 as amended by the wild life (protection) amendment act, 2002 (act 16 of 2003) to compound offences has power, competence and authority, on payment of a sum of money by way of composition ..... the jeep) were taken into custody and a case (crime no. 43 of 2004) was registered against them under section 9 of the wild life (protection) act, 1972 (for short, `the 1972 act'). the division forest officer, medak was also immediately informed. 3. on july 25, 2004 itself, the divisional forest officer, medak recorded ..... person and before the present holder, is or was transferee in good faith for adequate consideration.26. the statement of objects and reasons (act 16 of 2003) annexed with wild life (protection) amendment bill, 2002, in clause (xvi), proposed, to provide that the vehicles, weapons and tools, etc. used in committing compoundable .....

State of U.P. Vs. Keshar Singh

Court : Uttaranchal

Reported in : 2006CriLJ503

..... magistrate, purola district uttarkashi in criminal case no. 374 of 1980 by which the learned magistrate convicted and sentenced the accused respondent under section 51 of wild life (protection) act, 1972 to undergo imprisonment for two years and a fine of rs. 2000/- and default of payment of fine to further undergo 3 months s.i ..... respondent and perused the record.4. it was contended on behalf of the state that section 5 of the wild life (protection) act, 1972 empowers all the assistant wild life wardens to file complaints against offences under the said act in the competent courts. it was further contended that notification no. 4003/xiv-3-67-74 dated april 30 ..... 30, 1976 is as under :-in exercise of the powers under section 55 of the wild life (protection) act, 1972, (act no. 53 of 1972), the governor is pleased to authorize all the assistant conservators of forests, all the assistant wild life wardens, all the range officers all the deputy superintendents of police, all the sub-inspectors .....

State of Bihar Vs. Murad Ali Khan and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1989SC1; 1988(1)BLJR37; 1989CriLJ1005; 1988(3)Crimes822(SC); JT1998(4)SC124; 1988(2)SCALE933; (1988)4SCC655; [1988]Supp3SCR455

..... the order dated 1-7-1986 of the judicial magistrate, chaibasa, taking cognizance of an offence under section 9(1) read with section 51 of the wild life protection act, 1972 (act) against respondent-vikram singh.special leave petitions nos. 1877 of 1987 and 1878 of 1987 arise out of the subsequent two similar orders both dated 18- ..... forest of that range lodged a written complaint with the judicial magistrate, 1st class, chaibasa, in this behalf alleging offences against respondents under section 51 of the wild life protection act, 1972. the learned magistrate took cognisance of this offence and ordered issue of process to the accused.it would appear that at the police station, sonua, ..... a case had been registered under sections 447, 429 and 379, i.p.c. read with sections 54 and 39 of the wild life protection act, 1972 and that the matter was under investigation by the police. the respondents, who were amongst the accused, moved the high court under section 482, cr.p .....

Pu. C. Thangmura Vs. Pu. F. Vanlalthlana

Court : Guwahati

..... from the allegations made in the petition and the enquiry report submitted thereof, it prima facie appears that some offence have been committed under the wild life (protection) act and the rules framed thereunder and the chief secretary to the government of mizoram is duty bound to follow the law and cannot refuse to ..... matter and not initiate any action under the wild life (protection) act against his aforesaid colleague. being encouraged by such direction, the said colleague of chief minister and his other colleagues have started visiting different forests and ..... assured the public as well as the legislative assembly that appropriate action will be initiated soon against pu. k. vanlalauva for his commission of offence under wild life (protection) act, 1972. but surprisingly enough, in the very first week of august, 2001, the chief minister has directed the chief secretary not to pursue the .....

Biren Padhya Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.

Court : Gujarat

Reported in : (2002)3GLR23

..... by the petitioner for quashing and setting aside the decision dated 7-11-2001. it also prayed to constitute wild life advisory board under section 6 of the wild life (protection) act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act').2. from the record, it transpires that one special civil application no. 2583 of 2001 was filed before ..... this court and the division bench of this court while disposing of the said petition directed as under :'the wild life advisory board while ..... the state government not exceeding five;(h) such other persons not exceeding ten, who, in the opinion of the state government are interested in the protection of wild life, including representatives of tribals not exceeding three; (1-a) the state government may appoint vice-chairman of the board from amongst the members referred to .....

Bharthu and ors. Vs. State of Haryana and anr.

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : (2000)124PLR524

..... a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned notification dated july 29, 1988 issued under section 18 of the wild life (protection) act 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1972 act') and order of the collector, guhla, dated july 28, 1998 vide which he rejected the objections filed by the petitioners under ..... e., state of haryana, through its secretary to government, department of wild life preservation, issued notification dated july 29, 1988 under section 18 of the 1972 act declaring the area to be a sanctuary for the purpose of protecting, propagating and developing wild life and its environment. the total area acquired is 120 acres with boundaries ..... of the notification dated july 29, 1988 under section 18 of the 1972 act. what has been done by the said notification is to declare the reserved forest area as sanctuaries for the purpose of protecting, propagating and developing wild life and its environment. the petitioners have not challenged the notification by which the .....

Soman Vs. the Forest Range Officer

Court : Kerala

Reported in : 2008CriLJ3418; 2008(2)KLJ544

..... squirrel which is also known as the malabar giant squirrel. entry id in schedule ii of the wild life (protection) act, 1972 pertains to giant squirrels (raufa macroura, ratufa indica, ratufa bicolor). section 9 of the wild life (protection) act prohibits hunting of any wild animal specified in schedules i, ii, iii and iv except as provided under sections 11 and 12 ..... of the judicial first class magistrate, palakkad for an offence punishable under section 51 r/w section 9(2) of the wild life (protection) act, 1972 and section 27(2)(c) of the kerala forest act, 1961, challenges the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him by the courts below for the offence punishable under section ..... pay the fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for two weeks under section 51 r/w section 9(2) of the wild life (protection) act. with regard to the charge under section 27(2)(c) of the kerala forest act, he was acquitted. on appeal preferred by the revision petitioner as crl. appeal no. 163 of 1996 on .....

Fr.Sebastian Fernancies Vs. the District Forest Officer and anr.

Court : Chennai

..... offence rather, it is a fee paid by the petitioner voluntarily in order to escape from the clutches of law and to avoid prosecution under the wild life protection act. therefore, this court is convinced that the petitioner cannot be granted any liberty to agitate the same claim before any other authority or forum.10. ..... . in any event, the conduct of the petitioner shows that he voluntarily accepted to compound the offence in order to escape from the prosecution under the wild life (protection) act. therefore, the petitioner is estopped from contending that the compounding fee, which was paid by him ought to be refunded. therefore, the second contention raised ..... female deer with bullet injury and waste material of another deer following removal of meat. since, the action of the petitioner was an offence under the wild life (protection) act, he was arrested along with his accomplices, c.k.balan, krishnan and muniappan and they were produced before the first respondent for investigation. it is .....

Viniyog Parivar Trust and Another Vs. Union of India and Others

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : AIR1998Bom71; 1997(4)ALLMR489; 1998(4)BomCR418; 1998(1)MhLj484

..... and other provisions etc. the committee shall also verify whether birds are being dealt with illegally or illicitly for trade, in contravention of provisions of the wild life protection act, 1972. (4) on the committee finding illegal and illicit trade in birds, the police commissioner or his nominee on the committee or the competent authority ..... of m.c. mehta v. union of india, : [1988]2scr530 are not followed by the authorities. the petitioners have also referred to the provisions of the wild life (protection) act, 1972, which define the word 'animal' to mean 'amphibians, birds, mammals and reptiles and their young, and also includes, in the cases of birds and ..... prevent atrocities and inhuman and cruel treatment meted out to birds, despite there being full protection under the provisions of the wild life (protection)act, 1972 and the rules framed thereunder, particularly by preventing the entry and sale of wild birds in the city of mumbai and the state of maharashtra, it is submitted that, .....

Sri Satyabrata Majhi Vs. State of Orissa

Court : Orissa

Reported in : 2000(I)OLR230

..... section 51 of the wild life (protection) act. a report was also submitted to the d.f.o. (mangrove) wherein they alleged that the accused persons were found engaged in fishing 2 k.ms, away ..... the net along with the fishes. one of the turtles was dead. so they seized the trawler and the nets etc. for violation of section 9 of the wild life (protection) act, 1972 and prepared the seizure list. they kept the seized articles in zima of one forest guard and prayed the court to proceed against the accused persons under ..... ) passed in the said proceeding on 11.2.1999 refusing to release the trawler of the petitioner seized in the aforesaid case for an offence under section 51 of the wild life (protection) act, 1972.2. the petitioner is the owner of the trawler named as 'mahapurusa' bearing registration no. ocm (t) 207 with ashok leyland engine no. a.l. 11799 .....