- (1.) LEAVE granted. Issue notice. Mr. Sanjeev Sachdeva, Advocate accepts notice for Respondent 1 Moti Lal. Due to exigency both sides agreed that the matter can be heard and disposed of today.
(2.) A complaint has been filed against the first respondent Moti Lal for the offence under S. 49-B of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 read with S. 51 of the said Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The first respondent was arrested in September 2000 and remained in judicial custody. Nonetheless, he has chosen to move habeas corpus writ petition before the Allahabad High Court. A Division Bench of the High Court by the impugned order allowed the writ petition and ordered him to be set free forthwith. The learned Judges of the Division Bench thought that the offence pitted against the first respondent was under S. 50(3) of the Act. The following observations have been made by the learned Judges while allowing the writ petition: "A perusal of the above provision shows that only a person who is in the possession of the animal, etc. can be arrested. A perusal of the impugned FIR, Annexure I to the writ petition, shows that there is no allegation that the petitioner was in possession of the animal skins. Rather the allegation is only that the petitioner had booked the consignment of wild animals but there is no allegation that they were in his possession. S. 50 is a penal provision and hence it must be strictly construed. As regards S. 50(3), there is no allegation that the petitioner when arrested refused to furnish his name, address, etc. Hence this sub-section also does not apply. Consequently, the petitioner's arrest is illegal and he is entitled to be set free. We are not doubt conscious of the fact that leopards, tigers, etc. are endangered species and therefore strong action must be taken against all those who want to kill those animals but we have to see the provisions of the Act and cannot pass orders which are beyond the purview of the said Act merely because of our feelings."
(3.) THERE is no warrant for making the above observations as the offence alleged against the first respondent was under S. 49-B read with S. 51 of the said Act. When the arrest was made in accordance with law and he was remanded to judicial custody, we do not find any scope for the High Court to entertain a habeas corpus writ petition and quash the same without looking into the purport of the order under which he was remanded to judicial custody.;