Section 164 CrPC Statement Recorded Without Procedural Safeguards Or 'Cooling-Off' Period Not A Valid Confession: Jharkhand High Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Investigation Is At A Nascent Stage If Custodial Interrogation Is Not Indispensable: Telangana High Court Actual Pay Drawn During Last 10 Months Must Be Basis For Pension Calculation, Regardless Of Notional Pay In Parent Bank: Punjab & Haryana High Court Limitation For Redemption Of Usufructuary Mortgage Starts Only When Mortgage Money Is Paid Or Tendered: Allahabad High Court Exclusion Of Natural Heir From Will Not A Suspicious Circumstance If Execution Is Duly Proved: Punjab & Haryana High Court Right To Travel Abroad Is A Basic Human Right; Permission Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Visit Is For 'Social Or Celebratory' Purpose: Andhra Pradesh High Court Citizen Cannot Be Externed Merely For Raising Grievances Against Government Decisions: Bombay High Court Lack Of Opportunity To Cross-Examine Partition Commissioner Does Not Vitiate Final Decree; Report Is Part Of Record: Calcutta High Court Section 27 Evidence Act Recoveries Inadmissible If Police Had Prior Knowledge Of Location Before Recording Disclosure: Delhi High Court Foreigners Act | Burden Of Proof To Establish Citizenship Solely On Proceedee, Never Shifts; Prescription For Parkinson's No Proof Of Mental Illness To Explain Testimony Contradictions: Gauhati High Court Trial Court Erred In Abating Suit While Application To Bring Legal Heirs On Record Was Pending: Gujarat High Court Places Of Worship Act 1991 Not A Shield Against Land Acquisition By State For Public Purpose: Allahabad High Court Unregistered Partition Deed Creating New Rights In Immovable Property Inadmissible In Evidence: Himachal Pradesh High Court Illiteracy No Excuse For Filing False Income Tax Returns, Court Must Presume Culpable Mental State Under Section 278E: Jharkhand High Court Trial Court Must Consider Convenience Of Family & Accused's Right To Assist Counsel While Deciding Jail Shifting Applications: J&K High Court Investigation Substantially Complete, Offence Carries Max 7 Years Jail: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail To Police Officers In Corruption Case Buyer's Knowledge Of Title Defect Doesn't Extinguish Statutory Warranty Of Title Unless Sale Deed Specifically Excludes It: Kerala High Court Madras High Court Sets Aside Appointment Of PAs To Judges, Says Relaxation Of Qualifications Via Circular Violates Article 14 BNSS | Mere Allegation Of Calling Deceased To Spot Not Sufficient To Deny Bail To Woman If Charge Sheet Filed: Orissa High Court Amendment To Rectify Property Description In Agreement To Sell Can Be Allowed At Any Stage Of Specific Performance Suit: Delhi High Court NDPS | Confession Before Police Cannot Be Sole Basis For Prosecution: Telangana High Court Grants Bail No Judicial Sanctity For Adulterous Relationships: J&K High Court Refuses To Quash Abduction FIR Involving Married Woman Habitual Offender Accused Of Brutal Murder Of SC Community Member Denied Bail: Kerala High Court Prosecution Fails To Prove Murder Charge As Recovery Witnesses Turn Hostile: Uttarakhand High Court Acquits Man Acquittal In Criminal Case Based On Benefit Of Doubt Does Not Automatically Absolve Employee From Disciplinary Liability: Madhya Pradesh High Court Punjab & Haryana HC Quashes FIR Against Woman For Dressing Pet Dog As Lord Krishna Personal Laws Cannot Be Used As Shield To Commit Gang Rape Under Garb Of Nikah Halala: Allahabad High Court

Supreme Court Holds Time Limit for Filing Ownership Certificate Application Under Wild Life Act is Mandatory

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court of India has held that the time limit prescribed for filing an application/declaration for ownership certificate under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 is mandatory and cannot be extended. The Court emphasized that adhering to the prescribed period is crucial to fulfill the purpose and object of the Act and associated rules.

The bench, comprising of Justices M.R. Shah and Manoj Misra, stated, "The time limit prescribed under Rule 4(2) of the Declaration of Wild Life Stock Rules, 2003 for filing the application/declaration is mandatory and cannot be relaxed." The Court further explained that the Chief Wild Life Warden has a duty to give wide publicity to the notification and assist individuals in making the declaration within the specified timeframe. Failure to file the declaration/application within the prescribed time will result in the ownership of the wildlife article vesting with the Government or forest department.

The judgment emphasizes the importance of timely compliance and rejects the argument that ignorance or lack of knowledge can be used as a defense. Referring to Rule 3 of the Rules, the Court stated that the Chief Wild Life Warden is obligated to provide wide publicity and assistance, leaving no room for ignorance regarding the filing requirements.

This ruling by the Supreme Court will have significant implications for individuals in control, custody, or possession of wildlife animals or wildlife articles covered under the Act. The judgment reiterates the necessity of strict adherence to the prescribed time limits, reinforcing the objectives of wildlife protection laws.

Date of Decision: March 17, 2023]

 Vishalakshi Amma   vs State of Kerala & Ors.               

Latest Legal News