IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.BALAKRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 5TH APRIL 2011 / 15TH CHAITHRA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 1477 of 2007() ------------------------- (OFFENCE NO.3/2007 OF KOTHAMANGALAM FOREST RANGE, NOW PENDING BEFORETHE JFCM COURT, KOTHAMANGALAM PETITIONER/ACCUSED: ----------------------- N. PARAMESWARAN NAMBOOTHIRI, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O. NARAYANAN NAMBOOTHIRI, SECRETARY, THALIKUNNU DEVASWOM, RESIDING AT NELLIKATTUMANA, KOOTHATTUKULAM VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.N.MAHESH RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: --------------------------- THE STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR.I.V.PRAMOD THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, J. ---------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.1477 of 2007 ---------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of April, 2011 Order The petitioner is the accused in offence/occurrence No.3 of 2007 registered by the Forest Range Officer, Kothamangalam under Sections 43 and 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (for short 'the Act'). The petitioner is the Secretary of Thalikunnu Devaswom, Koothattukulam. The allegation against him is that he received a captive elephant from one Manoranjan Kumar Singh of Arunachal Pradesh and the said elephant was transported by the accused without getting prior permission from the concerned authorities. According to the complainant, the petitioner-accused has violated the provisions contained in Section 43 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act which is punishable under Section 51 of that Act. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that Manoranjan Kumar Singh, who was the owner of the elephant mentioned in the complaint was given the certificate of ownership and he was also given permission to transport the elephant from Crl.M.C.1477/07 2 the State of Arunachal Pradesh and as such there was due compliance of Section 43(1) of the Act. Section 43(1) reads thus: “No person having in his possession captive animal, animal article, trophy or uncured trophy in respect of which he has a certificate of ownership shall transfer by way of sale or offer for sale or by any other mode of consideration of commercial nature, such animal or article or trophy or uncured trophy.” Annexure I, the certificate of ownership and the permission to transport elephant as endrosed thereon and Annexure II, the permission in Form No.VII would clearly show that the owner of the elephant was given permission to transport the elephant from the State of Arunachal Pradesh. Annexure III shows such permission again given to the owner to transport the elephant to Ernakulam-Kerala. Therefore, there can be no dispute regarding that aspect. 2. The next question is whether the transferee who is the petitioner herein has complied with the provisions contained in Section 43(2) of the Act which reads thus: Crl.M.C.1477/07 3 “Where a person transfers or transports from the State in which he resides to another State or acquires by transfer from outside the State, any such animal, animal article, trophy or uncured trophy in respect of which he has a certificate of ownership, he shall, within thirty days of the transfer or transport, report the transfer or transport to the Chief Wild Life Warden or the authorised officer within whose jurisdiction the transfer or transport is effected.” The petitioner has reported the factum of acquisition of the elephant from the person having the certificate of ownership as mentioned above within thirty days of the acquisition of the elephant to the Chief Wild Life Warden. Going by the complaint, the allegation is that the petitioner herein illegally brought or imported captive elephant from Bihar to the State of Kerala. Since Section 43(1) of the Act requires prior permission of transport of elephant and since that requirement has already been complied with by the owner who has obtained certificate of ownership as evidenced by Annexures I to III, the allegation that there was non-compliance of Section 43(1) of the Act cannot be Crl.M.C.1477/07 4 sustained. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that within 30 days as stipulated under Section 43(2), the petitioner has reported the matter to the Chief Wild Life Warden regarding the acquisition of the elephant from another State and as such there was no non-compliance of Section 43(2) as well. Admittedly, the animal transported is not a wild animal but only a captive animal and as such Section 48A has no application to the facts of this case. Since the acquisition of the captive animal was from a person having certificate of ownership and since the transport was made after obtaining permission by that owner from the concerned authority, Section 49 also has no application. That apart, the only allegation is that there was non-compliance of Section 43(1) of the Act. That is found to be not true. Hence, proceedings initiated pursuant to Annexure IV report dated 16.3.2007(Offence No.3 of 2007 of Kothamangalam Forest Range) is quashed. The Crl.M.C is allowed as above. N.K.BALAKRISHNAN, JUDGE. srd Crl.M.C.1477/07 5 Crl.M.C.1477/07 6