Weak seizure evidence and uncorroborated Section 108 statement could not sustain wildlife conviction; acquittal followed.

Conviction under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 could not be sustained where the prosecution failed to prove a reliable search and seizure at the alleged premises, including authorization, movement records, prior police intimation, and an unbroken chain of custody. The Section 108 Customs Act statement was treated as weak evidence and, without dependable corroboration, was insufficient to support the wildlife charge. The deficiencies created serious doubt about the seizure case, so the conviction and sentence were set aside and the accused was acquitted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction for offences under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 could be sustained on the basis of the seizure evidence and the statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: The evidentiary record did not satisfactorily establish the search and seizure at the alleged premises. The materials did not contain reliable proof of search authorization, movement records, prior intimation to local police, or an unbroken transfer of custody from the DRI to the wildlife authorities. The statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 was treated as a weak form of evidence and could not, by itself, sustain a conviction under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, particularly when the statement was not corroborated by dependable material particulars. The deficiencies went beyond a mere irregularity and created serious doubt about the manner in which the seizure case was built.

Conclusion: The conviction and sentence were unsustainable and were set aside. The accused was acquitted of the charge under Section 40(2) read with Section 51(1-A) of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.

---