Fearing destruction of evidence by the police in the poaching case against MAK Pataudi and his accomplices, Delhi-based Wildlife Trust of India (WTI) today took measures to ensure the case did not lose steam. The trust was supported in the cause by People for Animals’ Haryana chairperson Naresh Kadiyan.

Both the WTI and the PFA Haryana sent formal notices to Chief Wildlife Warden, Haryana, urging him to take the case in his hands. Otherwise, the WTI and the PFA would be compelled to file a writ under the Wildlife Protection Act (WPA), 1972.

Filed under Section 55 of the Act, the notice mentions that the wildlife protection law authorises forest officers more than the police in all wildlife related offences.

Section 50 says any statement recorded before the forest officer of the rank of Assistant Conservator would be admissible as evidence before the court of law. However, statements recorded before the police will not be admitted as evidence in courts. Proceeding through the Supreme Court lawyer Mr Ritwick Dutta today, the WTI secured a possibility of justice in the poaching case, in case it is scuttled.

Speaking to The Tribune from Delhi, Mr Dutta said the notice had been sent to persuade Chief Wildlife Warden, Haryana to take charge, lest precious time is lost. In case the Haryana wildlife/forest authorities fail to act in accordance with law, the WTI, on its own, can file a complaint in the court, he said.

Mr Dutta further explained, “The Act has many safeguards for wildlife. But they are little known. Under Section 55, the court can take cognizance of wildlife offence even on the basis of a complaint filed by a person who has given a notice of 60 days before filing such a complaint. We have sent this notice today. Tomorrow if we feel those responsible for checking crimes against wildlife are not fulfiling their responsibility, we can file a writ petition.”

Citing lapses committed by the police, Mr Dutta said Section 50 of the Act required that any person detained or thing seized in a wildlife related offence would be taken before a magistrate to be dealt with as per law.

And all this will be done under the intimation of Chief Wildlife Warden or the officer authorised by him. The Act adds that a recovered vehicle used in such offences should not be returned to the accused till the culmination of trial. Even the Supreme Court, in the State of Karnataka V/s K. Krishnan case 2000, has upheld this provision.

In the present case however, all these statutory provisions were ignored. The clauses of the Act were violated with impunity, including the section which authorises officer not below the rank of an assistant conservator of forests to issue warrants against the accused, enforce attendance of witnesses, receive and record evidence.

A good hunting ground

Being closer to Delhi, the Jhajjar area has been a preferred hunting ground for Delhi-based trigger happy people. A dry, low rainfall area, it has all elements of a good hunting ground. It has open grassy stretches, low human density and less agriculture practice. Dry and open (with less forest cover) as it is, it offers great approach and visibility to hunters. It is most famous for harbouring Chinkaras, a rare deer family animal.