Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: wild life protection act 1972 section 38a constitution of central zoo authority Court: madhya pradesh

Sheikh Tausif Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and anr.

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Reported in : 2002CriLJ1562; 2002(1)MPHT61; 2002(1)MPLJ263

..... criminal case for offence under sections 2, 9, 27, 29, 35(6), 43(3), 46(a), 51 and 52 of the wild life (protection) act and sections 26 and 52 of the indian forest act has been registered against abdul waheed ansari and babulal on the allegations that they were fishing in the reservoir of pench national park, chhindwara ..... l. kochar, learned counsel for the petitioner that the provisions of the indian forest act as amended by the m.p. act (for short the 'forest act') are not applicable in the present case as the provisions of wild life (protection) act, 1972 (for short the 'act of 1972') are applicable because the alleged fishing was performed within the area of pench ..... produce and therefore the jeep can be construed to have been seized not under section 52 of the forest act as applicable in the state of madhya pradesh but under section 39(1)(d) of the wild life (protection) act, 1972. consequently the trial court has jurisdiction to consider the application for the release of the vehicle on .....

Gopal Das Mittal Vs. State of M.P. and ors.

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Reported in : 2002(5)MPHT116; 2003(1)MPLJ112

..... on the ground that land in question sy. no. 12/2 situate in village goutampur, district raisen is not covered under the provisions of the wild life protection act, 1972 (for short, 'the act'). the collector had refused the renewal application on 13-6-2000 as per order annexure p-3. revision was preferred. in revision an order was ..... .5. there is finding of fact given that survey no. 12/2 is covered in the notification issued under section 18. the wild life protection act, 1972 is having its own object of preservation of wild life which cannot be allowed to be defeated by allowing activity of the kind which petitioner wants to carry on. such activity can not ..... it has been further held that since notification under section 18 was issued prior to 1991, hence it was not necessary to issue notification under section 26a of the act as mentioned in circular issued by govt. of india department of environmental & forest, dated may 17th, 1999.2. learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no .....

Biresh Kumar Singh Vs. State of M.P. and Others

Court : Madhya Pradesh

..... of state until and unless there is trial and finding reached by the competent court that the property was used for committing an offence under wild life (protection) act, therefore, the impugned order be set aside and the aforesaid vehicle be ordered to be released on supurdginama. learned counsel for the applicant ..... different than the instant case. in that case, the offences were registered under wild life protection act. in that case, the main question for consideration was that whether withdrawal of power of interim relief conferred on authorities under the act (wild life protection act) can be construed as taking away such power of magistrate as criminal court ..... 2013 against the driver for the offence punishable under sections 27, 29, 39 and 51 of the wild life (protection) act alleging that he was unauthorisedly transporting the sand from the protected area, i.e., son ghariya wild life sanctuary, sidhi. the vehicle was seized by the police and officer of forest department. since the .....

Madhukar Rao Vs. State of M.P. and ors.

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Reported in : 2000(2)MPHT445; 2000(1)MPLJ289

..... as a result of deletion of sub-section (2) of section 50 of the wild life (protection) act, 1972 and as an effect of the provisions of section 39(1)(d) of the said act, there exists no power with the authorities under the act of the code to release any vehicle used in the course of alleged commission of ..... him.'6. sub-section (2) of the said section has been omitted by amendment act no. 44 of 1991. original section prior to amendment reads as under :--'(2) any officer of a rank not inferior to that of an assistant director of wild life preservation or wild life warden, who, or whose sub-ordinate, has seized any trap, tool, vehicle, ..... well as individuals now can also file complaints in the courts for offences under the act. it is also proposed to provide for appointment of honorary wild life wardens and payment of rewards to persons helping in apprehension of offenders.' 4. section 2 of the act contains 'definition clauses'. sub-clause (14) defines 'government property'. it means any .....

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 .....

State of M.P. Vs. Sayed Yahya Ali

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Reported in : 1995(0)MPLJ791

..... of section 50 to ensure that the vehicle which has been seized should not be returned to the accused. in contrast with the provisions of wild life (protection) act, the forest act does not contain a similar provision that the vehicle involved in the offence should be treated as the property of the government. the only power ..... the respondent but not otherwise. the learned judges of the division bench in the aforesaid matter dealt with the provisions of the indian forest act but not under the wild life (protection) act. the very purpose of carrying out the amendment making the seized vehicle as the property of the government, would be defeated by directing ..... as submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent, the question of confiscation arises only after trial. the provisions of the wild life (protection) act being different from the provisions of the indian forest act, the observation of the learned judges of the division bench will not have application to the facts of this case.5. .....

Smt. Atibai and ors. Vs. State of M.P.

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Reported in : 2008(2)MPHT76

..... to as 'vehicle') seized by a forest officer for the offence punishable under sections 27, 29, 32, 39(1)(d), 50 and 51 of wild life (protection) act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act').4. facts as argued and as appeared from perusal of the copies of the relevant documents filed on behalf of the petitions, in brief are, ..... been registered in the name of late shri bhagwanlal rawat and the petitioners are his heirs. vide aforementioned orders considering fact that by the alleged act the eggs and infants of the wild life were damaged, the application has been rejected by both the courts below, as aforesaid.6. the first ground on which the impugned order ..... spot. on 12-6-07 complaint was filed against harprasad alleging therein that by the said act of the accused natural habitat and eggs of wild life including tortoise, crocodile and gangage-crocodile (ghadial) are damaged. by such acts the number of wild life in the sanctuary is becoming less day by day. the area from which the sand was .....

M.P. All India Tourist Permit Owners Vs. State of M.P. and ors.

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Reported in : 2001(5)MPHT15

..... 2) as there is no power of confiscation given to any officer or authority such as assistant director of wild life preservation or wild life warden, etc. to pass an order of forfeiture. the scheme of wild life protection act is totally different hence it was held by this court that merely on seizure property would not vest in ..... to be adjudication for confiscation, which is provided, by an order of magistrate as apparent, from the conjoint reading of sections 39, 50 and 51 of wild life protection act. thus, the case of madhukar rao (supra) is totally distinguishable. it is true that merely by seizure property cannot stand automatically forfeited to state government. ..... from such animal or any vehicle, vessel, weapon, trap or tool used in such hunting shall be the property of the central government.'section 50 of the wild life protection act provides for prevention and detection of the offences. the powers of entry, search, arrest and detention in section 50, sub-section (1), clauses (a), (b .....

Banshilal Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh

Court : Madhya Pradesh

..... the view that this application deserves to be allowed.5. the m.p. rules of 1974 are framed pursuant to section 55 of the principal act, namely, wild life (protection) act, 1972 (in short 'the act of 1972'). rule 55 of the m.p. rules of 1974 reads thus : 55. cognizance of offences.- the following officers shall be authorised ..... the quashment of the case registered at crime no.179/2009 by the non- applicant against the applicant under section 9, 51, 52 of the wild life (protection) act, 1972 (in short the 'act of 1972').2. the sole but forceful contention made by learned counsel for 2 m.cr.c. no.8582 of 2013 the applicant is that ..... to make complaints under section 55, namely :- (a) chief wild life warden; (b) wild life wardens; (c) forest range officers.6. admittedly, none of the aforesaid officer has filed the .....

Rekhchand Son of Ayodhya Dehariya Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh Through ...

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Reported in : 2008(4)MPHT464

..... 1997, passed by judicial magistrate first class, amarwada in criminal case no. 457/1995, convicting the applicant under section 9 and 49a read with section 51 of the wild life (protection) act, 1972 and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine of rs. 5000/-.2. according to prosecution, on 29.1.1995, k.p. dhurve, ..... . p/2. after obtaining the opinion from dr. s.r. suryawanshi, he registered a case under section 9, 49a read with section 51 of the wild life (protection) act, 1972 (for brevity 'the act') against him and after investigation, filed charge sheet in the court. 23. learned trial court, relying on the evidence of dr.s.r. suryawanshi (pw ..... or trophy made therefrom and snake venom or its derivative];(c) specified date' means-(i) in relation to a scheduled animal on the commencement of the wild life (protection) (amendment) act, 1986, the date of expiry of two months from such commencement;(ii) in relation to any animal added or transferred to schedule i or part ii .....