LegalFirms.in
LegalFirms.in Judgments · legalfirms.in/judgments/titty-alias-george-kurian-vs-the-deputy-range-forest-officer-20201209/ · Printed 07 Nov 2026
Criminal · Reportable judgment

Titty alias George Kurian vs The Deputy Range Forest Officer

Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
9 December 2020
Case No.
Criminal Appeal No. 758 of 2018
Result
Allowed
Bench
Ashok Bhushan, Indu Malhotra
Citation
[2020] 13 S.C.R. 1230 : 2020 INSC 689
Supreme Court Reports [2020] 13 S.C.R. 1230 : 2020 INSC 689
Headnote

Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 – ss.2, 9, 11, 12, 39A, 49A, 51; Part II of Schedule I – Turtle seized from respondent – Criminal proceedings quashed by High Court – Held: Judgment dtd.16.05.18 recalled – s.9 prohibits hunting of any wild animal under Schedule I, II, III and IV except as provided u/ss.11 and 12 – On facts, Turtle seized is not included in Part II, Schedule I and it was already freed on the second day of its seizure thus, the High Court committed no error in quashing the criminal proceedings – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482.

Allowing the review petition and dismissing the appeal, the Court

HELD: Section 9 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 prohibits hunting of any wild animal under Schedule I, II, III and IV except as provided under Sections 11 and 12. In case a person hunts any of the wild animals which are included in Schedule I to IV, it becomes an offence inviting the penalty under Section 51 of the Act, 1972. A perusal of the letter given by the Veterinary Surgeon 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).” Lissemys punctata is a species of which Lissemys punctata is infraspecies. Although Lissemys punctata is included in Part II of Schedule I of the Act, however, the Turtle which has been seized is not that which is included in Part II of Schedule I. 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. No good ground found to interfere with the order of the High Court. [Paras 12-14][1233-H; 1234-A-D]

As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.

Full Judgment Text

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. 1. We have heard Shri Abhilash M.R., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri Nishe Rajen Shonker, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. We find sufficient ground to review the judgment dated 16.05.2018. The order of this Court dated 16.05.2018 is recalled. The review petition is allowed. This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 16.11.2017 of the Kerala High Court by which the High Court has allowed Criminal M.C. No.2720 of 2017 filed by the respondent by quashing proceedings in C.C. No.706 of 2016. The
Full text available to subscribers
Subscribe to access complete judgment text, daily digests, and AI-powered legal research tools. For informational and research purposes only.
View Subscription Plans →
Annual plans from ₹1,599 + GST.

This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.

All SC judgments →