Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: wild life protection act 1972 section 38k definitions Page 4 of about 18,045 results (1.228 seconds)

State of U.P. and anr. Vs. Lalloo Singh

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : 2007(9)SCALE291; 2007(7)SCC334; (2007)3SCC(Cri)353; (2007)3Crimes224(SC); 2007LawHerald(SC)2328

..... allowing the revision petition filed by the respondent. the question of importance involved in this appeal relates to the ambit of section 50(4) of the wild life (protection) act, 1972 (in short the 'act'). connected issues relate to the scope for exercise of jurisdiction under section 457 of the code of criminal procedure, 1973 (in short the 'code').2. ..... law for the time being in force, any officer not below the rank of an assistant director of wild life preservation or wild life warden shall have the powers, for purposes of making investigation into any offence against any provision of this act,-(a) to issue a search warrant; (b) to enforce the attendance of witnesses;(c) to compel ..... the power to deal with the same 'in accordance with law'. there is a significant addition in sub-section (4) by act 16 of 2003 i.e. requirement of intimation to the chief wild life warden or the officer authorized in this regard as to the action to be taken by the magistrate when the seized property is .....

Mohammed Ismail Vs. State of Kerala

Court : Kerala

Reported in : 2004(3)KLT322

..... criminal court, are competent to release the vehicle, in view of the deletion of sub-section (2) of section 50 of the wild life (protection) act, 1972, empowering the concerned magistrate to release the goods or the vehicles seized. therefore, it is submitted, once the vehicle is seized, it becomes the ..... appropriate reliefs.3. the 2nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit, in which it is submitted that the vehicle has been seized under the provisions of the wild life (protection) act, 1972 and therefore, it has become the property of the government. it is also submitted that neither the officers of the forest department nor the concerned ..... nair, j.1. the point to be decided in this writ petition is whether the judicial magistrate, before whom a vehicle seized under the provisions of the wild life (protection) act, 1972, is produced, is competent to give interim custody of the same to the registered owner. the brief facts of the case, as stated by .....

Ajit D. Padiwal and Etc. Vs. State of Gujarat and ors.

Court : Gujarat

Reported in : AIR1998Guj169; (1998)2GLR262

..... to cut the bamboos in terms of the agreement between the state government and the respondent company. (ii) under section 55 of the wild life (protection) act, 1972 chief wild life warden of the state is the statutory authority to file firs against any person who is alleged to have committed any offence punishable under the ..... gujarat permitted cpm to cut and remove bamboo from the shoolpaneshwar forest area. 6. as per the definition in the wild life (protection) act, 'wild life' includes land vegetation. it is the duty of the state to protect this vegetation. bamboo is one such vegetation present in shoolpaneshwar sanctuary in gujarat. according to the government, bamboo cleaning ..... tribals. state government was directed to ensure the compliance with the terms contained in the licence issued on 15-12-1994 under section 29 of the wild life (protection) act, 1972 to the company. while the matter stood like this, another news item came in 'gujarat samachar', dated 3-4-1996 regarding the rash .....

Mullaperiyar Environmental Protection Forum Vs. Union of India (Uoi) a ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Reported in : AIR2006SC1428; 2006(1)ARBLR374(SC); JT2006(3)SC31; 2006(2)SCALE680; (2006)3SCC643

..... coming in submergence which is not permissible without complying with the mandatory provisions of the forest (conservation) act, 1980 and the wild life (protection) act, 1972.27. reliance has been placed on section 26a of the wild life (protection) act which stipulates that the boundaries of a sanctuary shall not be altered except on a recommendation of the ..... adversely affected the interest of the petitioner or the state of kerala. according to the state of tamil nadu, the provisions of kerala forest act, 1961 and the wild life protection act, 1972 have no applicability to the case in hand. it is also urged that raising of water level in any case would not ..... had been declared as a 'sanctuary' covering the grassy area, marshy areas, swamps of mullaperiyar dam which was expanded to 777 sq. kms. under the wild life protection act, 1972. taking into account its importance as a well known habitat of tigers which is a highly endangered species, the sanctuary has been declared as 'periyar .....

Sri S. Bylaiah Vs. State by Bannerghatta Police

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : ILR2008KAR1892; 2008(4)KarLJ40; 2008(2)KCCR1059; 2008(3)AIRKarR315

..... , for the offences punishable under section 9, 39, 40, 44, 49 (b) & (c), 50, 51, and schedule-ii para-i (a) of the wild life protection act, 1972 (in short, 'the act') is before this court, praying for quashing the proceedings.2. in the instant case, the sub-inspector of forest cell informed the bannerghatta police station stating that the ..... act. therefore, the petitioner is entitled for quashing the proceedings. in the result, the petition is allowed and the proceedings in c c no. 1900/2007 on the file of j m f c at anekal, for the offences under sections 9, 39, 40, 44, 49 (b) & (c), 50, 51, and schedule-ii para-i & (a) of wild life protection act ..... reads as under:55. cognizance of offences: no court shall take cognizance of any offence against this act except on the complaint of any person other than:(a) the director of wild life preservation or any other officer authorised in this behalf by the central government; or(aa) member-secretary, central zoo authority in matters relating to .....

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 .....

Chandrappa Son of Subbe GowdA. Vs. the State of KarnatakA.

Court : Karnataka

..... to be registered in foc no.45/11-12 for the offences punishable under sections 24, 24e, 62, 104a of karnataka forest act, 1963 and rules 144, 165, 127a r/w sections 27 and 51 of wild life protection act. 1972 and investigation was taken up. on coming to know of the registration of the case, the petitioner filed petition under section ..... any of the offences alleged. therefore, the petitioner is entitled to relief of anticipatory bail.8. accordingly, the petition is allowed. the respondent - range forest officer. hanagere wild life division, arasaiu of shimoga taluk is hereby directed to release the petitioner herein on bail, in the event of his arrest in connection with the case in foc no. ..... 45/11-12 of said range forest office, hanagere wild life division, arasaiu, on his executing a personal bond for a sum of rs.50,000/- with two sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the investigating .....

Baikuntha Bihari Mohapatra Vs. State of Orissa

Court : Orissa

Reported in : 2001CriLJ4151

..... learned sub-divisional judicial magistrate, angul, rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for release of the vehicle seized for offence committed under the provisions of the wild life (protection) act, 1972 ('the act', for short).2. the case of the prosecution is that on 15-5-2001 at night while performing night patrolling on angul-tikarapada pwd road, the ..... divisional forest officer, satkosia wild life division, detected a white tata indica car bearing registratipn no. or-02-r/2879 coming from tikarapada area towards angul. the car was ..... by decisions of this court.5. coming to the first question, it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of the act. section 9 of the act prescribes that no person shall hunt any wild animal specified in schedules i, ii, iii and iv except as provided under sections 11 and 12. common indian hare is .....

Sri.Ashoka Son of Narayana Rao. Vs. the State by Range Forest Officer.

Court : Karnataka

..... as accused nos.6 and 7 and the complaint came to be lodged by the range forest officer before jurisdictional magistrate reporting the offences punishable under the wild life protection act. the petitioners, when produced before jurisdictional magistrate, were remanded to judicial custody. their application filed before jurisdictional magistrate as well as the learned sessions judge, ..... .12/11-12 of range forest office, balehonnur, registered for the offences punishable under sections 2(16), 9, 39, 50(c), 51 and 55 of wild life protection act, 1972, have sought for an order to enlarge them on bail.2. the case of the prosecution in brief is that on 16.2.2012 while accused ..... sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional magistrate and subject to further conditions that.i) the petitioners shall not indulge in any acts similar to the one alleged in the case;ii) the petitioners shall not tamper or terrorise the prosecution witnesses in any manner;iii) the petitioners shall .....

P.V. S/O M.V.Vargice, Vs. the State of KarnatakA. by S.H.O.. Uppinanga ...

Court : Karnataka

..... six accused persons against whom a case is registered in respect of the offences under sections 2. 9, 39. 48a. 50 and 51 of the wild life (protection) act, 1972 and under sections 3(1). 25 & 27 of the arms act, 1959 r/w section 34 of the i.p.c. and the prosecution case, in short, is that, when the complainant was patrolling on ..... checked a qualis vehicle which was coming from gundy side and found that there were four persons in the vehicle along with five plastic bags containing 5 k.gs. of wild animal flesh half baked and recovered from them a country single barrel gun and live cartridges.3. following the arrest of the said four persons, a case was registered even .....