https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390250 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. en-us Mon, 23 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 09 Nov 2020 09:59:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390250 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 23 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390250