Minimum Sentence Cannot Be Reduced by Courts in Special Statutes” – Delhi High Court

Delhi High Court, in a significant ruling on March 4, 2025, has set aside the lenient sentence awarded by the Special Judge in a case involving the illegal possession of Shahtoosh shawls, which are made from the endangered Tibetan Antelope. The case, titled Central Bureau of Investigation v. Md. Yaseen Wani & Ors., was heard by Justice Chandra Dhari Singh, who remanded the matter back to the Special Judge for fresh sentencing in accordance with the statutory minimum punishment prescribed under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972.

 “Where a Special Statute Prescribes a Mandatory Minimum Sentence, the Courts Have No Discretion to Reduce It”
The case originated in 2005, when the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) recovered eight Shahtoosh shawls, banned under Schedule I of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, from the premises of the accused. The investigation led to the registration of an FIR, and the accused were subsequently tried under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), read with Sections 49(B)(1) and 58 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, punishable under Section 51 of the Act.

During the trial, the accused pleaded guilty and were convicted by the Trial Court on November 23, 2021. On December 14, 2021, the Trial Court sentenced them to a fine of Rs. 10,000 each, and in case of default, simple imprisonment for two months.

Dissatisfied with the leniency of the sentence, the CBI filed an appeal before the Special Judge at Rouse Avenue District Courts, arguing that Section 51(1A) of the Act mandates a minimum punishment of three years, which could not be reduced at the court’s discretion. The Special Judge partially allowed the appeal on July 22, 2022, enhancing the fine to Rs. 20,000, and sentencing the accused to the period already undergone in jail.

The CBI again challenged this ruling before the Delhi High Court, contending that the Special Judge failed to apply the mandatory sentencing provisions of the law.

Justice Chandra Dhari Singh emphasized the binding nature of statutory minimum sentences and ruled that courts cannot impose a lesser sentence than what is mandated under the Act. The Court observed: "Where a special statute prescribes a mandatory minimum sentence, the courts have no discretion to reduce it. The legislative intent behind such provisions is to ensure deterrence and uniformity in punishment."

The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in State of M.P. v. Vikram Das (2019) 4 SCC 125, which categorically held that where a law prescribes a minimum punishment, courts cannot impose a lesser sentence, even under Article 142 of the Constitution.

 “Accused Were in Custody for Only Two Days; ‘Sentence Already Undergone’ Is Unsustainable”
The Delhi High Court also pointed out the error in the Special Judge’s decision to sentence the accused to the period already undergone in jail, as none of the accused had spent more than two days in custody. The Court remarked:

"The Special Judge failed to consider that the accused were granted bail immediately, and thus, sentencing them to the period already undergone in jail is legally unsustainable."

 “Wildlife Protection Laws Are Stringent by Design; Reducing Punishment Would Defeat the Statutory Objective”
Justice Chandra Dhari Singh emphasized the stringent nature of wildlife protection laws and the legislative intent behind strict penalties for wildlife crimes. The Court held that: “The minimum punishment under Section 51(1A) has been prescribed by Parliament for a reason. It reflects the seriousness of the offense and aims to deter future violations. Courts must respect legislative intent and ensure uniformity in sentencing.”

The Court also noted that the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, and Section 360 of the CrPC do not apply to cases under Chapter VA of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, ruling that: “The legislative framework governing wildlife offenses does not permit the benefit of probation or discretionary leniency in sentencing.”

 “Failure to Register a Proper Sentence Violates the Mandate of Law”
Setting aside the Special Judge’s order, the Court directed that: "The sentence imposed is contrary to the express provisions of the Wild Life (Protection) Act. The case is remanded back to the Special Judge for fresh sentencing in compliance with the statutory minimum punishment prescribed under Section 51(1A) of the Act."

The Delhi High Court’s ruling reinforces the mandatory nature of statutory punishments in special laws, particularly in cases involving environmental and wildlife crimes. By setting aside the lenient sentence and directing fresh sentencing in line with the law, the Court has reaffirmed the legislative intent behind stringent penalties in wildlife protection laws.

Justice Chandra Dhari Singh concluded with the firm observation: “It is the duty of the courts to uphold the law as enacted by the legislature. Any deviation from the statutory mandate would render the purpose of the Wild Life (Protection) Act ineffective. The minimum sentence prescribed under the Act must be adhered to in all cases.”
 

Date of Decision: 04 March 2025