Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: wild life protection act 1972 section 18 declaration of sanctuary Page 10 of about 7,149 results (5.648 seconds)

Asraful Hoda Vs. Arun Sahoo and anr.

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : 2006(2)CHN448

..... piscatar) and dhaman or rat snake (plyas mucosus) were inserted in entries 8 and 9 of schedule ii of the wild life (protection) act, 1972 by notification dated 24.11.86 issued by the ministry of environment and forests (department of environment, forests and wild life) and on the date of alleged interception of the truck on 16.7.80 and physical examination on 17.7 ..... , whether checkered keelback snake (xenochrophis piscatar) and dhaman or rat snake (plyas mucosus) were inserted in the schedule of wild life (protection) act only in 1986 or the said items do not find place in chapter 41 of the act is quite immaterial. accordingly, in view of the said specific provision, the above contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners does not at all .....

M.K. Balakrishnan S/O A. Govindan, Vs. Government of Karnataka Represe ...

Court : Karnataka

..... is the contention of the petitioner in this case that the horses are also to be protected as per the provisions of the prevention of cruelty to animals act, 1960 and as per the broad vision of the wild life protection act, 1972. they have sought for intervention of this court against the action of the state government ..... give priority to such natural features. article 51-a of the constitution makes it a fundamental duty of every citizen to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life. thus, the preservation of lakes, tanks and other water bodies is a primary obligation particularly in the present context where ..... in them. he has contended that article 51-a of the constitution makes it a fundamental duty of every citizen to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life and to have compassion for living creatures and hence preservation of lakes and other water bodies is of paramount national importance. .....

Timir Chowdhury Vs. State of West Bengal and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Reported in : 2006(4)CHN693

..... found that 41 sharks, of which 40 were gangetic shark and one guitar shark, which have been earmarked as 'schedule-1 part iia' animals as per the wild life (protection) act, 1972, were kept in the vessel. the forest officers directed the persons present in the vessels to produce valid document for possession of such animals but they failed ..... court.4. on the basis of such complaint, case no. c-3108/2005 was registered under sections 9, 39, 44, 49b and 51(1) of the wild life (protection) act, 1972 against sri gurupada das and 13 (thirteen) others. the prosecuting agency sught for permission of the learned court for burial of the 40 sharks since the same ..... cr. lj 3660, submitted that the power of return under the indian forest act was expressly removed by omitting sub-section (2) of section 50 of the indian forest act. it was held that in contrast with the provisions of the wild life (protection) act, the forest act does not contain a similar provision that the vehicle involved in the offence .....

Raghuveer Vs. Superintendent and Project Officer, National Chambal San ...

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Reported in : 2004(1)MPHT325; 2004(1)MPLJ258

..... case of madhukar rao (supra) is also considered. that apart, the full bench in the case of madhukar rao (supra) also by considering various provisions of the wild life (protection) act, in para 17 has interpreted the provisions of section 39(1)(d) and it is observed as under in the aforesaid para :'if the interpretation, as has been ..... release thereof by interim order of the court, pending prosecution in the matter and the effect of amendment made to sub-section (2) to section 15 of the wild life (protection) act, 1972. the said judgment is, therefore, with regard to release of the vehicle and the effect of deletion of sub-section (2) of section 15 and pendency ..... by this petition, challenge is made to an order dated 27-6-2002, annexure p-2 passed by the competent authority under section 39(1)(d) of the wild life (protection) act, 1972, by which tractor of the petitioner alongwith trolly has been confiscated and declared to be property of the government.2. it is the case of the petitioner .....

Balram Kumawat Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR2003SC3268; 106(2003)DLT392(SC); [2004(1)JCR177(SC)]; JT2003(Suppl1)SC1; (2003)3MLJ194(SC); 2003(6)SCALE724; (2003)7SCC628; [2003]134STC626(SC); 2003(2)LC1513(SC)

..... .question : 1. whether 'mammoth ivory' imported in india answers the description of the words 'ivory imported in india' contained in wild life (protection) act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said act') as amended by act no. 44 of 1991 is the question involved in these appeals which arise out of a common judgment and order dated 20.3. ..... ban on trade in mammoth ivory. taking us to the provisions of the said act, the learned counsel would argue that as mammoth ivory does not answer the description of 'wild animal', the provisions contained in chapter va of the said act would not be attracted.6. as mammoth is an extinct species and as ..... . for the new criminal jurisprudence must depart from the old canons, which make indulgent presumptions and favoured constructions benefiting accused persons and defeating criminal statutes calculated to protect the public health and the nation's wealth.'30. in state of u.p. v. chandrika : 2000crilj384 , this court held that in matters involving economic .....

C. Sam Joseph Raj Vs. District Revenue Officer and Addl. Dist. Magistr ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : 1998CriLJ3152

..... fruit bat heeded by the petitioner herein is not coming under the category of the 'vermin' found in schedule v of the act. further the contention of the petitioner herein that under section 9(2) of the wild life protection act, 1972, licence can be issued for hunting 'vermin' has also not at all been disputed by any of these respondents at ..... that from the very beginning, it is the case of the writ petitioner herein that section 9(2) of the wild life protection act, 1972 reads that licence can be issued for hunting 'vermin' as found in schedule v of the act. that being so, even though both the respondents have so far passed a number of orders in this regard, they ..... hunting of bats was not prohibited under section 9 of the wild life (protection) ac,u 1972 and the fruit bats, which the petitioner herein needs had been categorised as 'vermin' in schedule v of the act. further it is significant to state herein that section 13 of the arms act recognises a right of a citizen of india to have a .....

Payrelal Vs. the State (Delhi Admn.)

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR1995SC1159; 1995CriLJ2075; 1995Supp(2)SCC684

1. the appellant who has been found guilty under section 51 of the wild life (protection) act, 1972 was owner of m/s. haryana novelty emporium, delhi. on 1-9-1979, the wild life inspector, pw-1 on information conducted a search of the premises and found lion shaped trophies of chinkara skins meant for sale. a complaint was lodged ..... of the, accused has been that those trophies were made out of goat skin, after being painted and that the skins were not that of wild animals mentioned in the schedule of the act.2. the trial court accepted the prosecution case mainly relying on the evidence of pw-1, and con victed the appellant and sentenced him to ..... was found in possession of trophies. section 44 prohibits any dealing in such trophies without a licence and section 49 of the act lays down that no person shall purchase, receive or acquire any captive animal, wild animal other than vermin or any animal article, trophy, uncured trophy, or meat derived therefrom otherwise than from a dealer or .....

Mrs. Susetha Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR2006SC2893; 2007(1)AWC41(SC); (2007)1MLJ124(SC); 2006(7)SCALE640; (2006)6SCC543

..... , notice that whereas natural water storage resources are not only required to be protected but also steps are required to be taken for restoring the same if it has fallen ..... , observing that the wetland acts as a benefactor to the society. recently, in t.n. godavaraman thirumulpad (99) v. union of india and ors. : (2008)2scc222 , this court again highlighted the importance of preservation of natural lakes and in particular those which are protected under the wild life (protection) act, 1972. we may, however ..... the constitution of india. article 51-a of the constitution of india furthermore makes a fundamental duty of very citizen to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life. [see animal and environment legal defence fund v. union of india and ors. : [1997]2scr728 ; m.c .....

Ashwini Kumar Bhardwaj Vs. State of Rajasthan

Court : Rajasthan

Reported in : 2002CriLJ179

..... chittorgarh in criminal case no. 110/ 99 by which he framed charges against the petitioner for offence under sections 40, 49 read with section 51 of the wild life (protection) act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the act of 1972).2. it arises in the following circumstances:(i) on 7-6-1996 shri bhanwar singh, sho, police station chanderiya dist. chittorgarh lodged a first ..... order dated 25-10-2000 by which charges were framed against the accused petitioner ashwini kumar bhardwaj for offence under sections 40, 49 read with section 51 of the wild life (protection) act, 1972 are set aside and the complaint filed by the sho, police station handeriya is quashed. ..... case for offence under sections 40, 49, read with section 51 of the act of 1972 prima facie is not found.(ii) by virtue of section 55 of the act of 1972, cognizance of any offence under this act can be taken only on the complaint of the chief wild life warden or such other officer as the state government may authorise in this .....

Nagar Palika Parishad Vs. State of U.P. and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : AIR1998All232

order1. by a notification dt. 2nd sept, 1993 issued under section 18(1) of the wild life (protection) act, 1972 the concerned area was declared to be included within the limit of the sanctuary. subsequently, a notification was issued on 11th of jan, 1994, under section 21 of the said act being a proclamation specifying the area as sanctuary requiring persons claiming any right mentioned in ..... it satisfies the test of section 18(1) of the act. section 18 of the act empowers the-state government to declare any area to be a sanctuary if it is considered that such area is of adequate . ecological, faunal, floral, geomorphological, natural or zoological significance for the purpose of protecting, propagating or developing wild life or its environment. once these tests are satisfied the .....