1. The appellant who has been found guilty under Section 51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 was owner of M/s. Haryana Novelty Emporium, Delhi. On 1-9-1979, the Wild Life Inspector, PW-1 on information conducted a search of the premises and found lion shaped trophies of Chinkara skins meant for sale. A complaint was lodged stating that the provision of Sections 44 and 49 punishable under Section 51 have been contravened. Plea of the, accused has been that those trophies were made out of goat skin, after being painted and that the skins were not that of wild animals mentioned in the Schedule of the Act.
2. The trial Court accepted the prosecution case mainly relying on the evidence of PW-1, and con victed the appellant and sentenced him to undergo 6 months' R. I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 50/- (sic) in default to undergo 2 months, R. I. His appeal and further revision were dismissed. Hence the present appeal.
3. From the above stated facts, it can be seen that the contravention is that of provisions of Section 44 and 49 of the Act. The evidence of PW-1 establishes that the appellant was found in possession of trophies. Section 44 prohibits any dealing in such trophies without a licence and Section 49 of the Act lays down that no person shall purchase, receive or acquire any captive animal, wild animal other than vermin or any animal article, trophy, uncured trophy, or meat derived therefrom otherwise than from a dealer or from a person authorised to sell or otherwise transfer the same under this Act. PW-1 is an experienced and specially trained officer. His evidence thus establishes that the accused was in possession of those trophies and all the Courts below have accepted the same.
4. Now coming to the sentence, we are of the view that only the first part of Sub-section (1) of Section 51 is attracted and not the proviso. There is no evidence whatsoever when the accused came into possession. No doubt it was for the accused to have given an explanation, but what is clear from the evidence is that there is only a contravention, namely that a declaration as required under Section 40 was not made and that the act of dealing in the trophies by the appellant was without a licence. Under these special facts and circumstances obtaining in the case, the minimum sentence of 6 months as provided under the proviso is not attracted. It is stated that the appellant has been in jail for about 2 months. We think that the ends of justice will be met if the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone. His sentence of fine and default clause shall however remain as it was. The appeal is allowed subject to the modification of sentence.