Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: wild life protection act 1972 section 45 suspension or cancellation of licences Court: mumbai Page 2 of about 13 results (0.212 seconds)

Vimal Haribhau Naik Vs. The State of Maharashtra, through its addition ...

Court : Mumbai Nagpur

..... as to whether the petitioner is entitled to receive compensation for the loss caused to her orange trees by a wild animal, the blue-bull, a protected animal under the provisions of wild life (protection) act, 1972 under the scheme of compensation framed by the government in the interest of affected farmers/horticulturists? 12. in ..... payment of compensation for loss caused to orchards by only some of the wild animals and disallow it in other cases. he submits that even other wild animals like deer, blue-bulls, wild boars and so on which are protected under the wild life (protection) act, 1972, are also capable of causing destruction to the fruit bearing ..... . article 51a (g) in part iva of our constitution enjoins upon every citizen to protect and improve the natural environment including, inter-alia, forests and wild life. avowed object of the wild life (protection) act, 1972, is to provide for the protection of wild animals, birds and plants and it lays down an elaborate scheme for throwing a .....

Jagjeet Singh S/O Chandan Singh Kalsi Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court : Mumbai Nagpur

..... the application because the property had become a government property, however he was definitely influenced by the provisions of section 39(1)(d) of the wild life (protection) act, 1972 and has, therefore, taken erroneous decision by rejecting the revision application. 9. in this regard, it may be noted here that the ..... the application has to be considered on merits. the rejection of the application on the ground that the property seized by the competent officer under the wild life (protection) act, 1972 had become government property was, in my view, not correct. though the learned additional sessions judge has not clearly indicated that he rejected ..... up for determination in the present criminal application is that as to whether the property seized by the officer empowered under section 50 of the wild life (protection) act, 1972 becomes the government property immediately after the seizure thereof. in the present case, truck no. mh31ds2030 belonging to the applicant was seized during .....

Kashinath and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, ...

Court : Mumbai Nagpur

..... been established by the concerned agencies of the state government, in exercise of their powers under the wild life (protection) act, 1972 (53 of 1972) that the activities or impact of the presence of holders of rights upon wild animals is sufficient to cause irreversible damage and threaten the existence of said species and their habitat; ..... been established by the concerned agencies of the state government, in exercise of their powers under the wild life (protection) act, 1972 (53 of 1972) that the activities or impact of the presence of holders of rights upon wild animals is sufficient to cause irreversible damage and threaten the existence of said species and their habitat; ..... by the state government under sub-section (2) of section 4 of the said act, which is necessary in order to ensure that the wild life is effectively protected and there is no danger to the wild life in the critical wild life habitat. 21. we, therefore, direct the central government, through the ministry of environment .....

State of Maharashtra (Forest Department) Vs. Suraj Pal

Court : Mumbai Nagpur

..... the non-applicant apparently constitute an offence punishable under section 51 read with other relevant sections, such as sections 9, 39, 44, 49b and 52 of the wild life (protection) act, 1972. confessional statements, in particular, of the co-accused sarju and the non-applicant himself are sufficient to indicate that, prima facie the offence alleged against the ..... as, p.o.r. ) no.32/2013, registered for an offence punishable under section 51 read with sections 9,39, 44, 49b and 52 of the wild life (protection) act, 1972 against several accused persons including the non-applicant. the main allegation against the non-applicant is that he is a trader, who deals in purchase and selling ..... bones and claws of tigers. now, it is well settled law that the confessional statements made by the accused in forest or wild life offences are not hit by section 25 of the evidence act as a forest officer is not a police officer within the meaning of section 25. this view taken by the learned single judge .....

State (Through Range Forest Officer Netrawal – Goa) Vs. ...

Court : Mumbai Goa

..... 1972 (act of 1972, for short) read with section 27, sections 52 and 51 of the act of 1972. 5. it appears that during the course of the recording of the examination of pw2- prabhudessai, ..... wild boar was hunted by the third accused. a gun used in hunting the wild boar, with three cartridges was recovered from the house of the third accused, during a search on 15/11/2010. in such circumstances, the respondent and two others were put on trial for the offences punishable under sections 39(1)(d) and 39(3)(a) of the wild life (protection) act ..... allowed to be achieved indirectly. in the present case, there is a specific procedure laid down in the act of 1972 for recording of evidence/confession by an officer not below the rank of assistant director of wild life preservation or an officer not below the rank of assistant conservator of forest, authorised by the state government .....

Mannu Kaduba Gavane and Another Vs. The State of Maharashtra

Court : Mumbai Aurangabad

..... regular criminal case no. 100/2015, pending on the file of judicial magistrate first class, paithan, under sections 9, 39, 50 and 51 of the wild life [protection] act, 1972 [for the sake of brevity, hereinafter referred to as said act ]. 3. it appears that, on 1st december, 2014, nandu sakharam sonowane, police constable, paithan police station, taluka paithan, district aurangabad, lodged a complaint with ..... , it would be apposite to reproduce herein below the provisions of section 55 of the wild life [protection] act, 1972, which reads thus: 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 .....

Jalindar S/O. Kishan Mangrule Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court : Mumbai Aurangabad

..... judicial magistrate, osmanabad. the c.j.m. had acquitted the petitioner of the offences punishable under section 9, 39, 44, 49 r/w. 51 of wild life protection act, 1972. 3. it is the case of forest department that accused jalindar mangrule had created barbed wire fencing around his agricultural land and supply of electricity was given ..... procedure required to be followed for filing the complaint is not followed. 12. the sessions court has considered some provisions like section 57 of the wildlife protection act which raises some presumptions. the sessions court has considered the order issued by the government to appoint some officers, who can investigate the crime and file ..... as the officers are authorize to make investigation and file the chargesheet, there was no necessity to file complaint after getting authorization under section 55 of the act. the sessions court has referred one report dated 14.4.2005 submitted by r.f.o. regarding the offence in which the intention was expressed to .....

Shaikh Zahid Mukhtar and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Other ...

Court : Mumbai

..... of the apex court in the case of indian handicrafts emporium and others v. union of india and others. the challenge in this case was to section 49c of the wild life (protection) act, 1972. by section 49c, a total prohibition on the trade of imported ivory was imposed. even import of ivory was prohibited. the said provision was challenged on the basis of ..... to indian legal system. he relies on several enactments such as essential commodities act, narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances act, wild life protection act, foreign exchange regulation act and foreign exchange management act, food adulteration act, customs act, etc. where burden to prove that his act was innocent and not in contravention of the penal provisions in the relevant act has been shifted or cast on the accused. reliance is placed on .....

State of Maharashtra and anr. Vs. Maharashtra Land Development Corpora ...

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 2004(1)BomCR24

..... deserves to be dismissed.71. we have dealt with the relevant provisions of the constitution as amended by the constitution (42nd amendment) act, 1976, the indian forest act, 1927, the forest (conservation) act, 1980, the wild life (protection) act, 1972 and the maharashtra private forests (acquisition) act, 1975 in writ petition no. 305 of 1995 and cognate matters decided on 15th september, 2003. it is, therefore, not necessary ..... that it was forest land. the fact that the corporation started quarrying operations after 1976 would not make forest land non-forest. similarly, dropping of proceedings under the wild life (protection) act, 1972 or under land acquisition act were irrelevant and of no consequence. those facts may, at the most, go to show that the acquisition of land for a particular purpose was not necessary .....

KamaruddIn N. Shaikh Vs. the State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : 1996(4)BomCR209; (1996)98BOMLR159

..... that the enquiry was basically under the wild life (protection) act, 1972, the status of the land for which it is required was more important i.e. the utility of the land on the count of ecological, faunal ..... the operation of the provisions of section 21 of the wild life (protection) act. in the said proceedings, the sub-divisional officer observed that from august, 1975, the claimant was carrying on quarrying operations from an area admeasuring 60 acres and ..... the order passed by the sub-divisional officer, bombay suburban district on 12th february, 1992 in the proceedings under sections 19, 21, 23 and 24 of the wild life (protection) act, 1972. those proceedings were initiated in 1992. in that case, k.d. and company has claimed deletion of his land from survey no. 345-a from .....