Kiran Raj

The Delhi High Court has set aside the order passed by the Special Judge modifying the sentence of the accused persons convicted under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. The court has remanded the matter back to the Special Judge for reconsideration, directing that the sentencing be determined in accordance with the statutory provisions and judicial precedents. The decision was rendered by Justice Chandra Dhari Singh.

The revision petition was filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), challenging the order of the Special Judge, which altered the sentence imposed by the Trial Court. The accused had been convicted for offenses punishable under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 49(B)(1) and 58 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, and sentenced under Section 51 of the said Act.

The case originated from a 2005 CBI investigation into the smuggling of Shahtoosh shawls, which are banned under Schedule I of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. During a search of the premises of the accused persons, eight Shahtoosh shawls were recovered. The investigation led to the filing of an FIR by the CBI under RC No. SIB 2005 E0010-EOU-V.

In the proceedings before the Trial Court, the accused pleaded guilty and were sentenced to a fine of Rs. 10,000 each, with a default sentence of two months' simple imprisonment. Dissatisfied with this, the CBI appealed before the Special Judge, contending that the sentence was too lenient given the statutory minimum punishment prescribed under Section 51(1A) of the Act.

The Special Judge modified the Trial Court’s order, sentencing the accused to imprisonment for the period already undergone and increasing the fine to Rs. 20,000, with a default simple imprisonment of three months. The Special Judge considered mitigating factors, including the prolonged 16-year trial, the senior citizen status of some accused persons, and their voluntary guilty plea.

The CBI challenged the Special Judge’s order before the High Court, arguing that the sentence was contrary to statutory provisions and judicial precedent. The agency contended that Section 51(1A) of the Act mandates a minimum punishment of three years' imprisonment, which may extend to seven years, and a fine of not less than Rs. 10,000. It submitted that judicial discretion must be exercised within the legislative framework and that a sentence below the statutory minimum cannot be awarded.

Also Read: Failure to Act Within Timeframe Does Not Render District Magistrate Functus Officio: Calcutta High Court on Loan Recovery under SARFAESI Act

The CBI further pointed out that Section 51(5) of the Act explicitly excludes the application of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, and Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, except for offenders below 18 years of age. Relying on the Supreme Court’s judgment in State of M.P. v. Vikram Das, (2019) 4 SCC 125, the agency argued that where a statute prescribes a minimum sentence, courts cannot impose a lesser punishment.

The respondents opposed the CBI’s challenge, contending that the Special Judge had appropriately exercised discretion in sentencing. They argued that the accused had faced trial for 16 years and had voluntarily pleaded guilty to avoid prolonged proceedings. It was further submitted that the High Court’s revisional jurisdiction was limited to correcting palpable errors and that the impugned judgment did not warrant interference.

The High Court noted that its jurisdiction under revisional powers is confined to cases where there is an apparent error, non-compliance with statutory provisions, or arbitrary exercise of judicial discretion. It observed that "the revisional jurisdiction of this Court must be exercised in a limited manner such as in the case of a palpable error, non-compliance with the provisions of law or when the decision involves arbitrary exercise of judicial discretion."

Examining the statutory framework, the High Court referred to Section 51(1A) of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, which mandates a minimum punishment of three years, extendable to seven years, along with a fine of not less than Rs. 10,000. The court stated, "Section 51(1A) of the Act mandates a minimum sentence of three years, extendable to seven years, along with a fine not less than Rs. 10,000/-, thereby, leaving no scope for the Court to exercise discretion in reducing the sentence below the statutory minimum."

The court also examined Section 51(5) of the Act, which excludes the applicability of the Probation of Offenders Act and Section 360 of the CrPC. It observed, "Section 51(5) of the Act provides for the exclusion of provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, and Section 360 of the CrPC qua the offences provided for under Chapter VA of the Act, except for the persons being under eighteen years of age."

Addressing the issue of whether a criminal court can impose a sentence lesser than the statutory minimum, the High Court referred to precedents, stating, "where minimum sentence is provided for, the court cannot impose less than the minimum sentence." It cited State v. Ratan Lal Arora, (2004) 4 SCC 590, where the Supreme Court held that when a special statute prescribes a mandatory minimum sentence, courts cannot invoke probationary provisions to reduce it.

The High Court found that the Special Judge had exercised discretion in a manner inconsistent with statutory requirements. It noted that while mitigating factors such as the long duration of the trial and the advanced age of the accused were relevant considerations, they could not override the legislative mandate of a minimum sentence.

Also Raad: Supreme Court Sets Aside Delhi High Court Order, Sets Precedent on Staying Discharge Under CrPC

The court stated, "While this Court acknowledges and is conscious of the mitigating factors considered by the learned Special Judge, including the advanced age of the accused persons, the protracted trial spanning sixteen years, and their voluntary guilty pleas, it is imperative to reiterate that such considerations cannot override the clear legislative mandate."

It further noted, "The legislative intent behind prescribing a minimum sentence for offences under the Act must be given due regard. The Act was enacted with the objective of curbing wildlife-related offences that pose a serious threat to ecological balance and biodiversity."

In view of the statutory requirements and binding precedents, the High Court set aside the impugned judgment of the Special Judge. It remanded the matter for fresh sentencing, directing that the order be passed in accordance with statutory provisions and settled legal principles. The court stated, "the matter is remanded back to the learned Special Judge to pass an order on sentence, afresh, after taking into account the observations made hereinabove, the mitigating factors of the accused persons and the settled position of law, expeditiously, preferably within three months."

The case was disposed of with these directions.

Case Title: Central Bureau of Investigation v. Md. Yaseen Wani & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:1293
Case Number: CRL.REV.P. 237/2023
Bench: Justice Chandra Dhari Singh

[Read/Download order]