Awarding Less Than Minimum Prescribed Sentence Under Wildlife Protection Act Would Frustrate Its Object, Set A Dangerous Precedent: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has held that it is impermissible to award a sentence which is less than the minimum prescribed term under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.

Justice Chandra Dhari Singh said that the legislative intent behind prescribing a minimum sentence for offences under the enactment must be given due regard.

Observing that the Wild Life Protection Act was enacted with the objective of curbing wildlife-related offences that pose a serious threat to ecological balance and biodiversity, the Court said: “The stringent provisions, including the exclusion of probationary relief, reflect the legislative determination to deter illegal trade and exploitation of endangered species. Granting a sentence lesser than the prescribed minimum would frustrate the very object of the Act and set a dangerous precedent for future cases, thereby weakening the enforcement mechanism envisaged by the legislature.”

The Court was dealing with a plea filed by Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) challenging a special judge order sentencing various individuals in a case registered under Wild Life Protection Act for the period already undergone in jail and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000. 

They had pleaded guilty and were initially sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 10,000 each but the sentence was later modified on CBI's appeal.

The allegations against the accused persons were that, in the year 2005, during search of some of the accused persons' premises, total eight Shahtoosh Shawls, which are banned under Schedule I of the Wild Life Protection Act, were recovered from them.

It was CBI's case that Section 51(1A) of the Wild Life Protection Act, under which the individuals were convicted, provides for minimum punishment of three years which may extend to seven years, and also with fine not less than Rs. 10,000.

It was submitted that the discretion in awarding sentence of imprisonment has to be exercised within the statutory framework provided by the legislature, wherein, awarding a minimum punishment of three years has been mandated.

It was submitted that the Special Judge erred in passing the impugned order and merely proceeded to enhance the fine to Rs. 20,00 and awarding imprisonment for the period already undergone in jail.

Allowing the plea, Justice Singh said that the offence committed by the accused persons warranted strict enforcement of the penal provisions.

The Court said that the Special Judge, in modifying the sentence imposed earlier on the individuals, effectively diluted the statutory requirement by awarding a punishment of the period already undergone in jail and a fine of Rs. 20,000 with a default sentence of three months.

Justice Singh said that such an approach was in direct conflict with the law laid down by the Supreme Court that where a statute prescribes a minimum sentence, the court does not have discretion to impose a lesser sentence and that the provisions of the Probation Act, cannot be applied in such cases.

Noting that the accused persons were found guilty of dealing in Shahtoosh shawls derived from the Tibetan Antelope, the Court said:

“The gravity of such offences cannot be undermined merely on the ground that the accused persons were not directly involved in the killing of the animals. The prohibition extends not only to poaching but also to possession, trade, and facilitation of trade in such articles. The learned Special Judge erred in granting undue leniency by overlooking this crucial aspect of the offence,” the Court said.

It remanded the matter back to the Special Judge to pass an order on sentence afresh, after taking into account the observations made in the order, the mitigating factors of the accused persons and the settled position of law, expeditiously, preferably within three months.

Title: CBI v. MD. YASEEN WANI & ORS.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 277

Click here to read order