LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the seizure of an ‘Indian Flap Shell Turtle’ constitutes an offense under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, if that specific species is not explicitly listed in Schedule I of the Act.
CASE TYPE: Criminal Law
Case Name: Titty Alias George Kurian vs. The Deputy Range Forest Officer
Judgment Date: 09 December 2020
Introduction
Date of the Judgment: 09 December 2020
Citation: (2020) INSC 516
Judges: Ashok Bhushan, J. and Indu Malhotra, J.
Can a person be prosecuted under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 for possessing a turtle, if the specific species of the turtle is not explicitly mentioned in the Act’s Schedule? The Supreme Court addressed this question in a recent case involving the seizure of an ‘Indian Flap Shell Turtle’. The core issue was whether the seized turtle, identified as ‘Lissemys Punctata’, falls under the ambit of the Act, which lists ‘Indian Soft-shelled Turtle (Lissemys punctata punctata)’ in Schedule I.
The Supreme Court bench comprised of Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice Indu Malhotra. The judgment was authored by Justice Ashok Bhushan.
Case Background
On 25th July 2016, forest officials seized a turtle from Titty alias George Kurian at Karumbanakulam. The forest officials registered an offense under Sections 2, 9, 39A, 49A, and 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. The seized turtle was sent to a Veterinary Surgeon for identification, who, on 26th July 2016, identified it as an “Indian Flap Shell” with the scientific name “Lissemys Punctata”. On 27th July 2016, the court ordered the turtle to be released.
The accused, Titty alias George Kurian, sought to quash the criminal proceedings in the High Court, arguing that the seized “Indian Flap Shell Turtle” was not listed in Schedule I of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. The High Court agreed, quashing the proceedings. The Deputy Range Forest Officer then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 25th July 2016 | Turtle seized from Titty alias George Kurian by forest officials. |
| 26th July 2016 | Veterinary Surgeon identifies the turtle as “Indian Flap Shell” with the scientific name “Lissemys Punctata”. |
| 27th July 2016 | Court orders the release of the seized turtle. |
| 16th November 2017 | Kerala High Court quashes the criminal proceedings against Titty alias George Kurian. |
| 16th May 2018 | Supreme Court initially upholds the High Court order. |
| 09th December 2020 | Supreme Court allows the review petition and dismisses the appeal of the Deputy Range Forest Officer. |
Course of Proceedings
The Deputy Range Forest Officer initiated criminal proceedings against Titty alias George Kurian after seizing the turtle. The accused then filed a petition before the High Court of Kerala to quash the proceedings. The High Court allowed the petition, stating that the seized turtle was not of the species listed in Schedule I of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. The Deputy Range Forest Officer appealed against this decision to the Supreme Court. Initially, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision on 16th May 2018, but later, on review, recalled its order and dismissed the appeal on 09th December 2020.
Legal Framework
The case revolves around the interpretation of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, specifically:
-
Section 9 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972: This section prohibits the hunting of any wild animal specified in Schedules I, II, III, and IV, except as provided under Sections 11 and 12. “9. Hunting of wild animals, etc.- No person shall hunt any wild animal specified in Schedules I, II, III and IV except as provided under section 11 and section 12.”
-
Sections 11 and 12 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972: These sections outline the conditions under which hunting is permitted, with the permission of the Chief Wild Life Warden.
-
Section 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972: This section specifies the penalties for offences under the Act, including hunting animals listed in Schedules I to IV.
-
Schedule I, Part II, Item 8 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972: This section lists “Indian Soft-shelled Turtle (Lissemys punctata punctata)” as a protected species.
The core issue is whether the seized “Indian Flap Shell Turtle (Lissemys Punctata)” is the same as or included within the protected “Indian Soft-shelled Turtle (Lissemys punctata punctata)” listed in the Schedule.
Arguments
Appellant’s Arguments (Deputy Range Forest Officer):
-
The appellant argued that whether the ‘Indian Soft-shelled Turtle (Lissemys punctata punctata)’ and the ‘Indian Flap Shell Turtle (Lissemys punctata)’ are distinct species, subspecies, or part of a single species, requires expert evidence.
-
The High Court should not have quashed the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) without a full trial.
Respondent’s Arguments (Titty alias George Kurian):
-
The respondent contended that since the seized turtle, identified as ‘Indian Flap Shell (Lissemys Punctata)’, is not specifically listed in the Schedule of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, no offense is made out.
-
The turtle was seized on 25th July 2016 and released on 27th July 2016. Since it was not available for further examination, the Veterinary Surgeon’s report, which identified the turtle as ‘Lissemys Punctata’, should be the only material considered.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions | Party |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the seized turtle is a protected species | Whether the ‘Indian Soft-shelled Turtle (Lissemys punctata punctata)’ and the ‘Indian Flap Shell Turtle (Lissemys punctata)’ are distinct species or part of a single species or a subspecies | Appellant |
| Whether the seized turtle is a protected species | The matter requires expert evidence and should be decided in a full trial | Appellant |
| Whether the seizure of the turtle constitutes an offence | The seized turtle, identified as ‘Indian Flap Shell (Lissemys Punctata)’, is not specifically listed in the Schedule of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 | Respondent |
| Whether the seizure of the turtle constitutes an offence | The Veterinary Surgeon’s report, identifying the turtle as ‘Lissemys Punctata’, should be the only material considered. | Respondent |
Innovativeness of the argument: The respondent’s argument was innovative in that it focused on the precise nomenclature used in the Schedule of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. The respondent argued that since the seized turtle was identified with a different scientific name than what was listed in the schedule, it could not be considered a protected species under the law. This argument was crucial in persuading the High Court and eventually the Supreme Court to rule in their favor.
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues but addressed the core question of whether the High Court was correct in quashing the criminal proceedings. The implicit issue was:
-
Whether the seizure of an ‘Indian Flap Shell Turtle (Lissemys Punctata)’ constitutes an offense under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, when the Schedule lists ‘Indian Soft-shelled Turtle (Lissemys punctata punctata)’.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the seizure of an ‘Indian Flap Shell Turtle (Lissemys Punctata)’ constitutes an offense under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, when the Schedule lists ‘Indian Soft-shelled Turtle (Lissemys punctata punctata)’. | The Court held that the seizure of the ‘Indian Flap Shell Turtle’ did not constitute an offense. | The Court noted that the Veterinary Surgeon identified the turtle as ‘Indian Flap Shell (Lissemy’s Punctata)’, whereas the Schedule lists ‘Indian Soft-shelled Turtle (Lissemys punctata punctata)’. Since the seized turtle was not the exact species listed in the Schedule, no offense was made out. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court primarily relied on the text of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, and the report of the Veterinary Surgeon.
| Authority | Court | How it was used |
|---|---|---|
| Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, Section 9 | Supreme Court of India | Explained the prohibition of hunting wild animals specified in Schedules I to IV. |
| Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, Sections 11 and 12 | Supreme Court of India | Explained the conditions under which hunting is permitted. |
| Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, Section 51 | Supreme Court of India | Explained the penalties for offences under the Act. |
| Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, Schedule I, Part II, Item 8 | Supreme Court of India | Identified the protected species as “Indian Soft-shelled Turtle (Lissemys punctata punctata)”. |
| Veterinary Surgeon’s Report dated 26.07.2016 | Veterinary Hospital, Erumely | Identified the seized turtle as ‘Indian Flap Shell (Lissemy’s Punctata)’. |
Judgment
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Submission | How it was treated by the Court |
|---|---|
| Whether the ‘Indian Soft-shelled Turtle (Lissemys punctata punctata)’ and the ‘Indian Flap Shell Turtle (Lissemys punctata)’ are distinct species or part of a single species or a subspecies. | The Court did not delve into the scientific classification of the turtles. It focused on the fact that the seized turtle was not the exact species listed in Schedule I of the Act. |
| The matter requires expert evidence and should be decided in a full trial. | The Court rejected this argument, holding that on the face of it, the seized turtle was not included in Schedule I Part II of the Act. |
| The seized turtle, identified as ‘Indian Flap Shell (Lissemys Punctata)’, is not specifically listed in the Schedule of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. | The Court accepted this argument as the basis for its decision. |
| The Veterinary Surgeon’s report, identifying the turtle as ‘Lissemys Punctata’, should be the only material considered. | The Court relied on this report to conclude that the seized turtle was not the species listed in the Schedule. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
✓ The Court relied on Section 9 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972* to explain the prohibition of hunting wild animals specified in Schedules I to IV.
✓ The Court referred to Sections 11 and 12 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972* to explain the conditions under which hunting is permitted.
✓ The Court used Section 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972* to explain the penalties for offences under the Act.
✓ The Court referred to Schedule I, Part II, Item 8 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972* to identify the protected species as “Indian Soft-shelled Turtle (Lissemys punctata punctata)”.
✓ The Court relied on the Veterinary Surgeon’s Report dated 26.07.2016* to identify the seized turtle as ‘Indian Flap Shell (Lissemy’s Punctata)’.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the precise wording of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, and the identification of the seized turtle by the Veterinary Surgeon. The court emphasized that the seized turtle, identified as ‘Indian Flap Shell (Lissemy’s Punctata)’, was not the same as the protected species, ‘Indian Soft-shelled Turtle (Lissemys punctata punctata)’, listed in Schedule I of the Act. The court also considered the fact that the turtle had already been released, making further examination impossible.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Strict Interpretation of Law | 60% |
| Factual Accuracy | 30% |
| Procedural Fairness | 10% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 40% |
| Law | 60% |
Logical Reasoning:
The Court did not consider any alternative interpretations. It focused on a strict interpretation of the law and the facts presented by the Veterinary Surgeon’s report.
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to quash the criminal proceedings. The court reasoned that the seized turtle was not the exact species listed in Schedule I of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.
The court stated, “A perusal of the letter given by the Veterinary Surgeon as extracted above indicates that Veterinary Surgeon has identified the Turtle as ‘Indian Flap Shell (Lissemy’s Punctata)’ whereas the Turtle which is included in Part II of Schedule I of the Act, 1972 is “Indian Soft-shelled Turtle (Lissemys punctata punctata).”
The court also noted, “In the facts of the present case, on the face of it, the Turtle seized is not included in Schedule I Part II and the Turtle having already been freed on the second day of its seizure, the High Court did not commit any error in quashing the criminal proceedings registered for Wild Life offences.”
The court concluded, “We do not find good ground to interfere with the order of the High Court by which the High Court has exercised its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. On the facts of the present case, the appeal is dismissed.”
There was no minority opinion in this case.
Key Takeaways
✓ The Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, must be interpreted strictly, and only those species explicitly listed in the Schedules are protected under the Act.
✓ The identification of a seized animal by a qualified expert is crucial in determining whether an offense has been committed under the Act.
✓ If a seized animal is not listed in the Schedules, possession of that animal may not constitute an offense under the Act.
✓ This case highlights the importance of precise scientific nomenclature in legal proceedings related to wildlife protection.
Directions
No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this case.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that for an offense to be established under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, the seized animal must be an exact match to the species listed in the Schedules of the Act. This judgment emphasizes a strict interpretation of the law and highlights the importance of accurate scientific identification in wildlife protection cases. This case clarifies that a species not specifically listed in the schedule cannot be considered a protected species under the Act, even if it is closely related to a listed species.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of the Deputy Range Forest Officer, upholding the High Court’s decision to quash criminal proceedings against Titty alias George Kurian. The court emphasized that the seized ‘Indian Flap Shell Turtle’ was not the same as the ‘Indian Soft-shelled Turtle’ listed in Schedule I of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. This ruling underscores the need for precise identification of species and a strict interpretation of the law in wildlife protection cases.