Use Of Elephants For ‘Gaja Sangamom’: Kerala HC Quashes Criminal Case Alleging Violation Of Wildlife Protection Act
The Kerala High Court quashed criminal case against organizers of Gaja Sangamom after it found that the provisions under Kerala Captive Elephants (Management and Maintenance) Rules, 2012 and Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 are not violated in using elephants for ‘Gaja Sangmom’.
The Court said that the mechanical process of adopting the final report will lead to serious consequences.
The Petitioner approached the Court after the allegations of offences under the provisions of the Kerala Captive Elephants (Management and Maintenance) Rules, 2012 and under Sections 51 and 52 of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972.
The bench of Justice PV Kunhikrishnan observed, “…mechanical process from a court of law is to be deprecated. A court of law has to proceed in accordance with the law even if wrong Sections are noted in the final report, complaint, etc.”
Advocate N Mahesh appeared for the Appellant and Special GP Sandesh Raja K. appeared for the Respondent.
In the present case, it is alleged that the petitioners have conducted ‘Gaja Sangamom’ by engaging several elephants without obtaining sanction from the authorities.
The Court observed, “While taking cognizance based on a complaint or charge sheet, the Court has to apply its mind. It is not a mechanical process. What is stated in the final report or complaint cannot be blindly accepted by the Court. While taking cognizance, the offences alleged are to be verified by the Court and whether taking cognizance for the offences alleged as per law is permissible is also to be decided at that stage.”
The Court said that the Court taking cognizance is not a rubber stamp of the investigating agency or the complainant.
“A court of law replicating the provisions mentioned in the final report, complaint etc while taking cognizance will lead to serious consequences.”, the Court added.
The Court emphasised that Sections 51 and 52 of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 are only enabling provisions to impose sentence for the alleged violation of the Rules, provisions of the Act, etc.
The Court said that the continuation of the prosecution against the Petitioners is not necessary.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the Criminal Miscellaneous Case.
