1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR . CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2675 OF 2008. AND CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.495 OF 2008. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH RANGE FOREST OFFICER WARORA, DISTRICT CHANDRAPUR. VS MUKINDA VITHAL PAWADE AND 2 OTHERS ______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Shri S. R. Deshpande, Advocate for the applicant. Shri S. V. Sirpurkar, Advocate for respondents. CORAM : A.H. JOSHI, J. DATE : 17th MARCH, 2010. 1. Heard learned Advocate Shri S. R. Deshpande for the appellant and Shri S. V. Sirpurkar Advocate for the respondents. 2. The present is a case where the accused were charged for the offence under Section 9(c) (f) of Wild Life Protection Act 1972 and under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. By the impugend judgment they have been acquitted. 3. The prosecution case is that a Hyena was killed due to electrocution caused due to open uninsulated electrically charged wire put across the fence by the 2 accused persons. 4. The crux of the matter is identification of the wild life animal Hyena which is claimed to have been dead. 5. Admittedly, the prosecution has failed to prove that the remains of dead body of the alleged Hyena are those of Hyena, the scheduled specie of wild life. 6. The damage to the prosecution case is irreparable and irreversible. 7. The judgment impugned is not and cannot be shown to be perverse or rendered due to failure to consider any material on record. It is a case of poor and reckless prosecution. 8. No indulgence is called for. The application and appeal are rejected. Judge //mule//