WILDLEX

The appellant met Mr. Muller through his business of an electrical contractor. They became to know each other for more than ten years. During this period, the appellant saw some ivory in Muller's house, which might have encouraged the appellant to offer an illegal ivory deal to Muller.

The petitioners are dealers and artisans in ivory who carry on the business and trade in ivory including the manufacture of articles derived from ivory lawfully imported into India prior to the ban. They imported part of the stock of mammoth ivory from Russia and part of it from Hong Kong for the purposes of the business.

The question raised in this appeal is: whether a specified officer empowered under Section 54(1) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 as amended by the Wild Life(Protection) Amendment Act, 2002 (Act 16 of 2003) to compound offences has power, competence and authority, on payment of a sum of money by way of composition of the offence by a pers

A charge sheet dated 28-12-2014 was issued to the appellant. Certain charges were leveled against the appellant pertaining to his conduct.

The appellants had imported mammoth fossil said to be of an extinct species in the year 1937.The stock of mammoth fossil held by the appellants is said to be periodically checked by the statutory authorities.

In this case the petitioner had challenged the constitutional validity of Amendment Act 44, 1991, to the Constitution of India, which prohibited trade in imported ivory. The appeals which arise out of a common judgment and order dated 20.3.1997 passed by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court.

The petitioner aggrieved by the letter dated 23.6.2003 whereby it has been informed by the Ministry of Environment and Forest that the petitioner's request of import of Caiman Crocodilus Fuscus skin from USA cannot be granted. The petitioner intended to import tanned skin of Caiman Crocodilus Fuscus from the USA.

On 6th April 1996, 16th April 1996 and 12th May 1996, M/s Istihaq & Co. supplied various types of shawls to the petitioner company. The supplies included shawls which have been seized by the respondent.On 7th November, 1996, the petitioner No.

The facts are that the the appellant owned a safari lodge on a piece of land within a nature reserve. His main tourist attraction was the wildlife on the nature reserve. However poaching on the reserve had led to the reduction in wildlife sightings and therefore lower volumes of business.

The accused pleaded guilty and were convicted for unlawfully hunting 2 rhino’s and being in possession of rhino horns. The court below considered the seriousness of the crime and the number of rhino’s killed per year and the impact that poaching has on the economy and imposed a sentence of 6 years imprisonment and a N$60 000.00 fine.