Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: wild life protection act 1972 section 38k definitions Court: guwahati Page 1 of about 112 results (0.105 seconds)

Chandmari Tea Co. and anr. Etc. Vs. State of Assam and ors.

Court : Guwahati

..... without any interference.4. petitioners' grievance is that by notification dated 13-6-85 issued by the respondent no. 6 under section 35 of the wild life (protection) act, 1972 (for short 'the act, 1972') the govt. incorporated certain areas of kanchanguri village measuring about 89.754 hectors into the kaziranga national park. though as per the said ..... . however, rights of any kind may be allowed to be continued as per section 24(2)(c) ofthe wild life (protection) amendment act, 1991 with the consultation with the chief wild life warden.23. section 19 of the act, 1972 has also been amended vide gazette of india publication dated 20-9-91 to the effect that the ..... is seen that the publication of the notification and the addition of the areas to the kaziranga national! park and burachapori sanctuary were necessary for protection of the wild life and also to improve environment and to safeguard the forest of the country. while adding the areas in question to the national park/sanctuary in .....

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 .....

Jaladhar Chakma and Etc. Etc. Vs. the Deputy Commissioner, Aizawl, Miz ...

Court : Guwahati

..... of the impugned orders with their hearths and home and also having cultivable lands. the impugned orders were purported to have been made under the provisions of the wild life sanctuary (protection) act 1972 (for short 'the act') under which there may be a declaration of sanctuary by virtue of the provision of section 18 of the ..... : 'no. tpb. 9/79-80/40 dated tuipuibari, the 13th october, 1980. tothe secretary,village council, tuipuibari i/ tuipuibari ii.sub : eviction of villagers within the dampa wild life sanctuary. as per the deputy commissioner, aizawl's letter no. aam.20/79-80/249 of 26-9-80 it is hereby ordered that (it is) time for shifting of ..... is found out from the records that under section 18 of the act a notification has been issued on 20th jan. 1976 by the development commissioner. ex-officio secretary to the govt. of mizoram declaring the area given in that notification as dampa wild life sanctuary. section 18 requires that such a declaration is to be made by a notification. .....

Ningombam Ranjit Singh and anr. Vs. Smt. Yumnam Premila Devi

Court : Guwahati

..... only be taken by the court only on the complaint of a statutory officers i.e. officers mentioned in section 55 of the wild life protection act, 1972, the magistrate could take cognizance of an offence for the said offence on the complaint made by the said statutory officers even if the police officer is ..... the language employed in sub-section (4). it is apparent that if the facts reported to the police disclose both cognizable and non-cognizable offences, the police would be acting within the scope of its authority in investigating both the offences as the legal fiction enacted in sub-section (4) provides that even a non cognizable case shall, in ..... was not empowered to investigate the offence. the enquiry was an integrated one, being based on the same set of facts. even if the offence under the essential commodities act may be cognizable, the police officer would be competent to include it in the charge-sheet under section 173 with respect to a cognizable offence. in ram krishna v. .....

Parimal Kumar Das Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Guwahati

..... the state government in the matter and that such steps and proposal should come to its logical end. upon reference to the provisions of wild life protection act, 1972, the stand taken is that 'wildlife sanctuary' with adequate ecological, faunal, flora, geomor-phological, natural or zoological significance for the purpose of ..... after discussion and considering the proposal etc. opined that mere conversion of kakoijana reserve forest into a wild life sanctuary cannot achieve the desired goal. as per the opinion of the board, the reserve forest which is under the protection of joint forest management committee, if converted to a wildlife sanctuary, there is likelihood of the ..... the state government.7. after the aforesaid developments, the matter was placed before the state board of wild life and the board in its meeting held on 17.3.2007 decided to maintain the existing reserve forest with full protection. it was also decided not to convert the reserve forest to a wildlife sanctuary.8. the .....

Yamkhomang Haokip Vs. State of Manipur and ors.

Court : Guwahati

..... up action for eviction of the persons from the area falling within the declared sanctuary in accordance with the provisions as contained in chapter iv of the wild life (protection) act, 1972 but none of these things have been found to be followed by the respondents in issuing of passing the impugned eviction notice for initiating eviction ..... said case is as to whether the said land is a portion of a sanctuary declared by the state government as required under section 18 of the wild life (protection) act, 1972 and whether the eviction notice was issued upon the chief of the village in accordance with law or not. from the available materials on record, ..... govt. of manipur by invoking the powers conferred upon the authority under section 18 read with section 19 of the wild life (protection) act, 1972 but it is not a notification as required under section 2(22) of the act which envisages that 'notification' means a notification published in the official gazette. in the instant case, the state .....

Tilok Bahadur Rai Vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh

Court : Guwahati

Reported in : 1979CriLJ1404

..... men on sentry duty could not be established. sepoy tilok bahadur rai is sentenced to 6 (six) months simple imprisonment under section 51(1) of the wild life protection act.hence, this application.5. the question that naturally offers for determination is; whether the accused killed the tiger in hunting and whether there were mitigating circumstances in ..... by the deputy commissioner, tirap district, khonsa in case no. g.r. 10 of 1976 convicting the accused under section 51(1) of wild life protection act, 1972, (hereinafter referred to as "the act") and sentencing him to simple imprisonment for 6 months.2. the facts of the case are, that in the evening of 8th of may, ..... prior to shooting the tiger that charged at him. therefore, he will be completely protected under sub-section (2) of section 11. the deputy commissioner while convicting the accused under section 51(1) followed the spirit of the act to protect the wild life but the provisions of section 11 were not brought to his notice. i find .....

Tilok Bahadur Rai Vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh

Court : Guwahati

Reported in : 1979CriLJ1404

..... men on sentry duty could not be established. sepoy tilok bahadur rai is sentenced to 6 (six) months simple imprisonment under section 51(1) of the wild life protection act.hence, this application.5. the question that naturally offers for determination is; whether the accused killed the tiger in hunting and whether there were mitigating circumstances in ..... by the deputy commissioner, tirap district, khonsa in case no. g.r. 10 of 1976 convicting the accused under section 51(1) of wild life protection act, 1972, (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') and sentencing him to simple imprisonment for 6 months.2. the facts of the case are, that in the evening of 8th of may, ..... prior to shooting the tiger that charged at him. therefore, he will be completely protected under sub-section (2) of section 11. the deputy commissioner while convicting the accused under section 51(1) followed the spirit of the act to protect the wild life but the provisions of section 11 were not brought to his notice. i find .....

Apurba Ballav Goswami Vs. State of Assam and ors.

Court : Guwahati

..... (s), golaghat, permitting withdrawal of the case by prosecution and acquitting the accused-opposite party of the offence allegedly committed by them under section 51 of the wild life protection act, 1972.3. before i discuss the facts, which have given rise to the present writ petition, it is, in the context of the facts of the present ..... is hereby withdrawal as per prayer of the learned p.p. golaghat.the accuseds are acquitted from the offence under section 51 of the wild life protection act.15. feeling aggrieved by the withdrawal from the prosecution of the accused-opposite party and their acquittal, the petitioner, who is a journalist and a ..... i) an offence report, seeking prosecution of the accused-opposite party herein, under section 59 of the wild life (protection) act, 1972, for violation of the provisions of sections 9 and 39 thereof read with section 25(1) of the arms act. was submitted to the chief judicial magistrate, golaghat. in the offence report, so submitted by the divisional .....

Deba Barua Vs. State of Assam

Court : Guwahati

..... as mr. d.p. saikia, learned counsel for the state. 3. while investigating the koliabor ps case no. 161/88 under section 51(1) of wild life protection act, 1972 (for short, 'the act') read with section 379 ipc on receiving a secret information that a stolen rhino horn had been consealed by the accused-revisionist, the police raided the house of ..... argued by the learned counsel for the revisionist. 7. in view of the discussions made above, the conviction of the revisionist under section 25(1)(a) of the arms act is not sustainable. therefore, the present revision succeeds and accordingly the same is allowed. the judgment and order dated 24.1.1995 passed by sri d.d. bhuyan, addl ..... to be fire arms both live and empty. after obtaining sanction required under section 39 of the arms act the accused was put on trial. the learned magistrate found the accused-revisionist guilty under section 25(10)(a) of thearms act, sentenced him to 3 years ri and a fine of rs. 2000, in default of payment of fine .....