WILDLEX

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 court considered an appeal against the sentence imposed.

The two Accused had been convicted of unlawfully hunting game. The value of weapons and vehicle used in the commission of the offence exceeded the civil jurisdiction of a Subordinate Court, which accordingly referred the question of forfeiture of these articles to the High Court.

Appellants had been convicted for unlawful hunting upon a plea of guilty before a Subordinate Court. They had hunted 19 springbok and 1 gemsbok without a licence. All pleaded guilty, were convicted and were sentenced to pay fines of varying amounts.